On Fri, 6 Jul 2001, Peter Wemm wrote:
> Julian Elischer wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > On Fri, 6 Jul 2001, Daniel Eischen wrote:
> > > 
> >     ->proc->
> > >   ->thrgrp->
> > >   ->thr->
> > >   ->thrctx->
> > > 
> > interesting, though the thrctx maps most closely to a userland thread.
> > there may be many threads running on each #3.
> IMHO, I like this less than kse/kseg/ksec/proc.  Remember.. these are
> not thread specific.. they can be used to implement aio etc as well.
> The KSE paper's definitions of things are pretty clear.  If we're not
> going to use something netbsd compatable, then IMHO we should stick to
> the design paper.

That was my first thought also ;-)

> The only variation that I think I'd find appealing would be to try
> and make the kseg/ksec difference stand out more.  ksegrp/ksectx is less
> likely to be confused at a casual glance.
> I'm not really sure that we can use the 'struct lwp' name in a compatable
> way with NetBSD.  It would be even worse if we both had 'struct lwp'
> but ours was different to theirs.

NetBSD doesn't (yet) have an idea of a KSE group.  We could just
replace our usage of KSE with LWP:


If NetBSD ever folded in our KSE group support, wouldn't that be the
most compatible?

> ... etc...
> Look for these in particular:
> Index: sys/sys/lwp.h
> Index: sys/sys/proc.h
> Index: sys/sys/sa.h
> Index: sys/sys/savar.h
> If we dont do similar structure member naming, then there is no point
> using the same structure names as that will just increase the confusion.
> NetBSD's structure is different too.. They have implelemted both
> Solaris-style LWP's and SA's over the top of the same low level entity.

I like that they use a ucontext_t for storing the context also.
Julian, can we please do the same?  We'll probably also need to
use a spare slot in ucontext/mcontext for a flags word (floating
point register validity?).

Dan Eischen

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message

Reply via email to