Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 07:17:46 +0000 (GMT) From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> To: jb@cimlogic.com.au (John Birrell) Cc: tlambert@primenet.com, jb@cimlogic.com.au, dyson@FreeBSD.ORG, perlsta@sunyit.edu, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: implementing linux's clone() Message-ID: <199802050717.AAA09693@usr08.primenet.com> In-Reply-To: <199802050710.SAA08126@cimlogic.com.au> from "John Birrell" at Feb 5, 98 06:10:00 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > Without quantum affinity, thread group affinity, the value of using > > kernel threading vs. call conversion threading is higly questionable, > > IMO. > > For FreeBSD, though, kernel threading avoids the problem with drivers > not supporting a non-blocking interface. So does IPC to a simple device manager in user space. 8-). > > Personally, I would be *very* happy to see even a user space pthreads > > brought up to draft 10 (the final POSIX draft). > > No, not draft 10. ISO/IEC 9945-1 ANSI/IEEE Std 1003.1 Second Edition > 1996-012-12 as published. I have that sitting on the desk next to me, > so I'll update the user-space threads to match the kernel thread > implementation. I need to continue using the user-space threads > on FreeBSD/Alpha for the forseeable future (unless someone wants to > whack kernel threads into NetBSD's alpha kernel). Hey! Cool! How does the final spec differ from draft 10? The O'Reilly book claims that draft 10 is identical (it calls it the final spec). Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199802050717.AAA09693>