From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Oct 4 3:55:59 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from pcnet1.pcnet.com (pcnet1.pcnet.com [204.213.232.3]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E76114EAB for ; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 03:55:56 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from eischen@vigrid.com) Received: (from eischen@localhost) by pcnet1.pcnet.com (8.8.7/PCNet) id GAA14658; Mon, 4 Oct 1999 06:54:43 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 06:54:43 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Eischen Message-Id: <199910041054.GAA14658@pcnet1.pcnet.com> To: asmodai@wxs.nl, shocking@prth.pgs.com Subject: Re: I was accepted to LokiHack '99 at Atlanta Linux Showcase Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, nordwick@scam.xcf.berkeley.edu Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > Do you mean pthreads? > > If so, we still do not have a pthread_cancel in our libc_r which could > greatly make things harder to implement. I think OpenBSD has one and we > might do well to look at that one. We could implement pthread_cancel rather easily (I have some crufty patches lying around somewhere to do it), but it wouldn't be nearly POSIX compliant. Some non-cancellable routines would be cancellable, and vice-versa I think too. We need to take a different approach to our threads library in the form of scheduler activations. I _can_ hack in the pthread_cancel routines into our current libc_r, but I'd much rather spend my time looking into scheduler activations which will better solve the problem. Dan Eischen eischen@vigrid.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message