Re: kqueue giant-locking (&kq_Giant, locking)
From: Garrett Wollman (wollman_at_khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu)
Date: 04/17/04
- Previous message: Ceri Davies: "Re: bin/41071: make NO to NO_ transition patch"
- In reply to: Brian F. Feldman: "Re: kqueue giant-locking (&kq_Giant, locking)"
- Next in thread: Peter Wemm: "Re: kqueue giant-locking (&kq_Giant, locking)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 14:02:06 -0400 (EDT) To: "Brian F. Feldman" <green@freebsd.org>
<<On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 01:13:13 -0400, "Brian F. Feldman" <green@freebsd.org> said:
> Contrived. Let's see one. There won't be any -- they will be using
> threads, not kqueues, because threads work on more than one system.
Except, of course, that the thread library may use kqueue internally.
> In case
> you didn't notice, kqueues have been horribly broken for years now
For values of ``horribly broken'' apparently equal to ``not understood
by green''.
-GAWollman
_______________________________________________
freebsd-arch@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-arch-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
- Previous message: Ceri Davies: "Re: bin/41071: make NO to NO_ transition patch"
- In reply to: Brian F. Feldman: "Re: kqueue giant-locking (&kq_Giant, locking)"
- Next in thread: Peter Wemm: "Re: kqueue giant-locking (&kq_Giant, locking)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]