Frank van der Linden wrote:

>On Sat, Jun 21, 2003 at 02:47:08AM +0200, Matthias Buelow wrote:
>  
>
>>But are there solid plans underway to give NetBSD 1x1
>>and MxN kernel threading
>>    
>>
>
>MxN is what the SA code does, so NetBSD currently does that. The issue
>is that it's not release quality yet. 1x1 has been possible for a while
>with the clone(2) system call. It's Linux compatible, so you could
>compile linuxthreads on NetBSD with some minor adjustments.
>  
>
I thought clone(2) was supposed not to be natively used by NetBSD 
applications.  As far as I get, Linuxthreads is a pthread 
implementation.  So why use it, and not pth or Provenzano's pthreads? 
 Is it because of MP?

I see no reason for so much complaints about -current's pthread/SA. 
 Many times have I read that -current "may not even compile, so beware".

What could be interisting, though, is that NetBSD could be not so 
dependent on an specific kernel version to have things done right.  For 
example, it would be very nice if one could boot an current kernel in a 
release userland and not have bits like fsck, ps or ifconfig brake, and 
it would be even nicer if a user of a current system could boot his 
stable kernel when he needed to do a crucial task, where stability is 
essential.  This happens with Linux and is true to some extent in 
FreeBSD.  And this would allow people to debug -current in even their 
"production" machines at times when they're not at some really serious work.

I know nothing about POSIX threads, but it would be nice, if it doesn't 
depend on too many opaque objects and types (that "expand" to underlying 
real types and objects at compile time) in its standard API, to have the 
ability to transparently switch from our native threads library to some 
other at runtime (through e.g. LD_LIBRARY_PATH setting), so that one can 
choose when he wants to debug and when he wants to be stable.  (Yet 
nice, I am not saying this is or should be feasible.)

Regards,
    Pappires