1:1 threading.

[Peter Wemm]

Jeff Roberson wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, Daniel Eischen wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, Scott Long wrote:
> > > Once 5-STABLE happens, users of 5.x can no longer be guinea pigs for KSE
> > > development.  By keeping the 1:1 and M:N API's separate, KSE can
> > > progress in 6-CURRENT until it is proven while still allowing MFC's to
> > > 5-STABLE to happen without too much pain.
> >
> > That's kind of silly; we have other ways to keep API/ABI
> > compatability and have used this for all other syscalls.
> > The KSE and thread mailboxes even have version numbers
> > in them.
> 
> 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 for one think they should use seperate syscalls.  We shouldn't have
designed-for-KSE mailboxes going anywhere near this stuff and it gives the
KSE folks plenty of room to keep tweaking their data structures. 

Anyway, I can't wait to see how this works out.  It is becoming a Big Deal
at work, we're using the linuxthreads port + rfork() out of desperation.
libthr can't possibly be any nastier than that.

Cheers,
-Peter
--
Peter Wemm - peter at wemm.org; peter at FreeBSD.org; peter at yahoo-inc.com
"All of this is for nothing if we don't go to the stars" - JMS/B5