From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 13:22:42 -0500 From: William Josephson To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] plan9ports to NetBSD Message-ID: <20041207182242.GB21003@mero.morphisms.net> References: <038021ee700f4c13187b3e750f329d99@proxima.alt.za> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <038021ee700f4c13187b3e750f329d99@proxima.alt.za> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Topicbox-Message-UUID: 1227b512-eace-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 On Tue, Dec 07, 2004 at 11:03:02AM +0200, Lucio De Re wrote: > I can get most of the way there, but > > and > sched_yield() > concern me. The former seems quite unrelated to the 9ports altogether > and the latter does not appear in NetBSD (1.6.1, nearly up to date) at > all. What do you mean by ``unrelated''? As I recall it is there so that the lock routines can yield the processor. I expect that sleep() is sufficient, but it is there for a reason. > For the record, I downloaded plan9-20040708.tar.gz which seems close > to being the final word, if the web site is to be believed. There has been additional work since, but that's the latest that is in a releasable state. I expect the next one to support FreeBSD 5.x and NetBSD 2 (assuming I have time). -WJ