Subject: Re: Please Revert newlock2
To: Bucky Katz <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Matt Thomas <email@example.com>
Date: 02/20/2007 20:02:41
Bucky Katz wrote:
> Matt Thomas <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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
> 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
> Someone with authority to say so, say so, and we're done here.
I have some authority but no one listens to me.