[openbeosnetteam] Re: Dragonfly or FreeBSD nestack? was Re: Mailing lists and network team questions
- From: "Fredrik Holmqvist" <fredrik.holmqvist@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: openbeosnetteam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 12:56:05 +0100
FreeBSD sounds more tempting to me to, unless we can replace lwkt to use
Haiku's API and gain something from it.
I highly doubt we would gain much, maybe Joseph is the person who can make
an educated guess if it's something we even want to do.
If we can choose FreeBSD maybe it's time to look at what modules we need and
the tasks for those.
/Fredrik Holmqvist, TQH
On 3/16/06, Axel DÃrfler <axeld@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> "Joseph Liu" <froseph@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Dragonfly bsd would be a little more work of porting another set of
> > apis and debugging it. If we decide on implementing lwkt in our
> > kernel
> > or any kind of cpu affinity in the future, dragonfly bsd seems like a
> > better bet just to get it over with. If we aren't I would guess
> > probably sticking with plain old freebsd to user their size as a
> > crutch. As of the current state (i've been pulling fromallbsd.org, so
> > maybe freebsd 5.x?), freebsd and dragonfly's net stack look similar.
>
> As the kernel guy on this list, I must say that lwkt doesn't sound too
> tempting for me. In fact, I don't really see the point in serializing
> tasks this way - in many ways, it's like a slightly relieved giant
> lock. I didn't read over the DragonFly code, though, I'm judging from
> what I read about it only - maybe there is a striking example in there
> that even I might find useful :-)
>
> Having CPU affinity for threads, though, is definitely an aim we should
> persue, but I don't like how it's done for lwkt. If my vote counts,
> porting the FreeBSD stack sounds like a much better option to me.
>
> Bye,
> Axel.
>
>
>
--
Fredrik Holmqvist
Chaordic: things that thrive on the edge of chaos with just enough order to
give them pattern, but not so much to slow their adaptation and learning.
Other related posts:
