On Sep 13, 2011, at 14:52 , Derrick Brashear wrote: > Cases I knew of LWP fileserver being used: > Linux with "new" pthreads support until what turned out to be bugs in > our pthread support > were addressed. LD_ASSUME_KERNEL also could be used at the time to > "assume" an older kernel > and assume LinuxThreads. > Previous NetBSD versions: their pthread support was buggy. > > > As far as I know, the LWP fileserver (nor volserver) are neither > necessary nor desirable anywhere.
The last time I tried, only the LWP fileserver worked under User Mode Linux :-) But then, that was in 2003. And I guess nobody cares. > On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 5:03 AM, Simon Wilkinson <[email protected]> wrote: >> We're currently maintaining 3 versions of the AFS fileserver - the LWP one, >> a "normal" pthreaded fileserver, and the demand attach fileserver. The >> "normal" pthreaded fileserver has been the default for all of our supported >> platforms since the 1.4 release. >> >> I'd like to simplify the build tree, and the fileserver code, by removing >> support for the LWP fileserver. We have a long term goal of removing LWP >> from the tree entirely, so this is one step along the way. If I do so, this >> change would only target master - the LWP fileserver would remain on the 1.6 >> tree. >> >> Is there anyone out there deliberately making use of the LWP fileserver who >> would be affected by its removal from master? -- Stephan Wiesand DESY -DV- Platanenenallee 6 15738 Zeuthen, Germany _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-info mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
