Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 17:49:48 -0500 (EST) From: Andrew Gallatin <gallatin@cs.duke.edu> To: Daniel Eischen <eischen@pcnet1.pcnet.com> Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 1:1 threading. Message-ID: <16003.32780.950519.931661@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10303271456430.24745-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com> References: <20030327143259.I64602-100000@mail.chesapeake.net> <Pine.GSO.4.10.10303271456430.24745-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Daniel Eischen writes: > On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, Jeff Roberson wrote: > > > On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, Daniel Eischen wrote: > > > > Which means they are likely to change. I do not want to develop on > > unstable APIs and unstable kernel code. kern_thr.c is 254 lines. I think > > we can handle a little duplication. I'm not sure why the objection is so > > strong. > > I don't see kse_create() changing since it takes a > mailbox pointer as an argument and you can theoretically > hang anything off the [versioned] mailbox. According to the 5-stable roadmap at http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/articles/5-roadmap/major-issues.html KSE kernel and userland components must be functionality complete by June 2003 in order to be included in the RELENG_5 branch. For security and stability reasons, if KSE cannot be finished in time then, by default, all KSE-specific syscalls should be modified to return ENOSYS and all other KSE-specific interfaces disabled. By not depending on KSE infastructure, the 1:1 can still be available in 5.1 in exactly the same fore regardless of whether or not KSE makes the June deadline or not. Drew
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?16003.32780.950519.931661>