From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <a3e9aaeae7bc7203742373a0636e8a24@proxima.alt.za>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] plan9ports to NetBSD
From: Lucio De Re <lucio@proxima.alt.za>
Date: Wed,  8 Dec 2004 05:55:33 +0200
In-Reply-To: <20041207182242.GB21003@mero.morphisms.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 12699b9e-eace-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

> 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.

Oh, I meant that the NetBSD header file didn't have anything in it
that resembled the use p9ports made of it.  Just my ignorance, I have
to admit.  Of course, NetBSD and multiprocessing are still in their
infancy.

As you suggest, NetBSD 2 may well be a more interesting target.

++L