David O'Brien wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2001 at 12:42:49AM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote:
> > step 1:  get proc structure broken up, with system still running: done (twice)
> Can you post your diff to the proc structure?
> ...
> > -random_ioctl(dev_t dev, u_long cmd, caddr_t addr, int flags, struct proc *p)
> > +random_ioctl(dev_t dev, u_long cmd, caddr_t addr, int flags, struct thread *td)
> This implies `struct thread' has replaced `struct proc'.  (I could be
> wrong, but cannot be sure until you post the `struct proc' and related
> structure changes/additions)

A thread is blockable and anything that might block (e.g. a syscall,( e.g.
needs to talk in terms of the thread rather than the process.
so, yes, maybe > 50% of uses of "struct proc *p" get changed to
"struct thread *td". The proc structure however still exists.

> There is no `struct thread' in Jason's KSE paper. 

> Why aren't you
> following the paper
> http://people.freebsd.org/~jasone/refs/freebsd_kse/freebsd_kse.html?

Well since I made up the terminology in the paper,... because I changed my mind
about it?  My original posts said.. "lets call these KSEs etc. tillwe are
sure what they do and can give them better names.

The basic unit turns out to be the thread which can be blocked 
so calling it a KSEC is plain confusing.

As you requested,
I include my current version of proc.h at http://www.freebsd.org/~julian

this is NOT the version that ran under step #1 but rather as it looks now, half 
way through step #2.

> --
> -- David  ([EMAIL PROTECTED])

+------------------------------------+       ______ _  __
|   __--_|\  Julian Elischer         |       \     U \/ / hard at work in 
|  /       \ [EMAIL PROTECTED]     +------>x   USA    \ a very strange
| (   OZ    )                                \___   ___ | country !
+- X_.---._/    presently in San Francisco       \_/   \\

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

Reply via email to