Date: Sun, 1 Nov 1998 08:47:34 +1100 (EST) From: John Birrell <jb@cimlogic.com.au> To: lists@tar.com Cc: jb@cimlogic.com.au, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Kernel threading (was Re: Thread Scheduler bug) Message-ID: <199810312147.IAA11039@cimlogic.com.au> In-Reply-To: <199810312126.PAA23692@ns.tar.com> from "Richard Seaman, Jr." at "Oct 31, 98 03:26:50 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Richard Seaman, Jr. wrote: > Agreed, sort of. I don't use libc_r. If you're going to implement > deferred cancellation points, I think you still need to wrap some > syscalls, so you still need to generate a separate libc somewhere. > The "kernel" syscalls drop into libpthread, in a manner analagous > to what happens in libc_r, but the wrappers are different, and the > syscalls that are wrapped are different. If you wrapper the syscalls, you get compatibility problems. If the syscalls block in the kernel, then that's where thay should be cancelled. > Well, the user-space knowledge of the running thread comes from pthread_self, > which in the case I've implemented this comes from the code John Dyson > provided to the list a while back. errno codes are returned on the > thread stack, if I understand his code. Is that the user LDT implementation? -- John Birrell - jb@cimlogic.com.au; jb@freebsd.org http://www.cimlogic.com.au/ CIMlogic Pty Ltd, GPO Box 117A, Melbourne Vic 3001, Australia +61 418 353 137 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199810312147.IAA11039>