Bucky Katz wrote:
> Matt Thomas <matt@3am-software.com> writes:
> 
>> SA is/was an extremely unwieldy mechanism.  It make the kernel
>> scheduler considerably more complex and had tentacles in a myriad of
>> places it shouldn't have.  It was an interesting experiment; however
>> not all experiments succeed and SA was an unfortunate failure.
> 
> Yes. SA does not equal M:N threads, and as I've said elsewhere, if it
> were my system, I'd burn down SA but salvage M:N through a different
> mechanism.
> 
> Let's draw this thread to a close. Y'all aren't gonna give me m:n on
> uniprocessor back, are you?  I should quit hoping and give up on that?

We've said we aren't give SA back.  If someone came up a good M:N implementation 
layered on top of the current _lwp_* syscalls, I wouldn't have a problem
integrating it.

> Someone with authority to say so, say so, and we're done here.

I have some authority but no one listens to me.
-- 
Matt Thomas