Waldemar Kornewald <wkornew@xxxxxxx> wrote: > Axel Dörfler wrote: > >> Yup, agreed. That would be the first task. I can already name two > >> things: > >> * sysctl() is not supported by our netstack and the plan is to > >> replace > >> it with a nicer mechanism (BMessage, and from kernel: KMessage). > > I think a simple ioctl() interface is the way to go for now. > Oh, yeah, I forgot to mention that one, too. But for the net_server > we'd use > BMessage. Also, for notifications from kernel land I'd prefer > KMessage > (like it is used for node monitoring). Yes, I like that, too. The KMessage is foremost thought as a notification mechanism at this point anyway. > >> * PTHREAD_MUTEX_INITIALIZER is a function call, thus you can't [...] > > Well, he could even fix it if he needs it, I don't have to do > > everything, really :-) > I just want to use our time more effectively (thus the "you can get > around > that"). Andrew should not do netstack and kernel development in > parallel if > that means he'll not be able to finish the netstack in time. Let's > put less > critical tasks at the end of the task list. Of course, it depends on what he needs. I don't think we'll come across pthreads much at all while working on this. Bye, Axel.