From: Archie Cobbs (archie@whistle.com)
Date: Fri Feb 12 1999 - 17:32:51 EST
Godmar Back writes:
> Sorry for sending piecewise mail like this, but I just thought about it
> some more and I feel that unconditionally blocking irqs (or what would amount
> to taking a spinlock on an SMP) for the duration of a JNI call is
> probably also not what we want, (especially if that JNI code may block
> or call back into jthreads.)
I agree, I don't think that's a good idea.
However, what's wrong with supplying a kaffe-specific function pair
for enabling/disabling context switches? Then only that natice code
that needs this can easily do it.
These functions would be defined in "native.h" (since they're
kaffe-specific) but could be called from either type of native
code.
> I guess it has to do with the question Alexandre raised: should we attempt
> to support user JNI code to the best of our abilities or not.
We only have to support the JNI spec. But we also have to make sure
our own native code is bug-free.
-Archie
___________________________________________________________________________
Archie Cobbs * Whistle Communications, Inc. * http://www.whistle.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 23 2000 - 19:58:07 EDT