Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 14:58:31 -0700 From: Gordon Tetlow <gordont@gnf.org> To: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/sys proc.h Message-ID: <20030418215831.GP9682@roark.gnf.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0304181421260.56212-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> References: <XFMail.20030418170836.jhb@FreeBSD.org> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0304181421260.56212-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--jigfid2yHjNFZUTO Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 02:30:33PM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote: >=20 >=20 > On Fri, 18 Apr 2003, John Baldwin wrote: >=20 > >=20 > > I think here there is room for more input at the design stage. Perhaps > > that is happening on threads@ (which I'm not reading ATM, E2MUCHEMAIL)? > > I just would like to the see the design hammered out before a lot of > > code gets written as it is easier to change the design when you don't > > have a pile of code already depending on it. >=20 > All the design was done aboth 6 months ago on the KSE mailing list. > unfortunatly all that went straight out the window when the > signal masks were moved from the process to the thread. If this is the case, why isn't there a new design for others to review rather than committing something without any supporting code around it? Fields should generally be introduced when they are going to be used. -gordon --jigfid2yHjNFZUTO Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE+oHUHRu2t9DV9ZfsRAjawAJ9YCAcC/OFEZYGOkEN1rkhftaYSbgCgwSkO Indf/nkR+8fS8WVGHUbl+sA= =1to8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --jigfid2yHjNFZUTO--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030418215831.GP9682>