KSE signals broken by 1:1 commit.

[Julian Elischer]

On Fri, 11 Apr 2003, Jeff Roberson wrote:

> So I don't think you are fair enough!
> I ever posted a message said that jeff's patch had bug,
> the bug is signal lost, but he obviously didn't fixed it,
> and you guy allowed him to commit it, please search arch list
> about 1:1 thread! I don't think delaying some days of libthr
> change to kernel would hurt anything, I had reported
> the problem and why did core still allow him to commit?
> 
> David Xu
> 
> 
> The problem is a minor race where an exiting thread could have a process
> wide signal pending when it exits.  Hardly a critical issue.  Why did we
> allow any of kern_thread.c to be commited when it obviously doesn't work
> at all?

To allow people to try parts of it that did work.
Signals worked well enough to allow people to try out
teh concept of upcalls and userland scheduling. We got a lot of feedback
and learned a lot. kern_thread.c BTW is full of functions that are not
generally called AT ALL for non KSE processes.
so in effect it is NOT in general use.
(the only parts called in normal use are the KSE and KSEG and thread
allocators and destructors.)

so the risk in having it committed was very small and gained a lot.

Enough of this..
I've wasted the first evening I've had free in a month arguing 
and that's well and truly too much. I'm goign back to sripping out KSEs
and I'll pass a patch around when it's done. It will probably
(definitly) have some effect on ule so I'm not going to do
anything until you've had time to digest it and we can come to some
agreement about it.


> 
> Cheers,
> Jeff
> 
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-threads at freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-threads
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-threads-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
>