| To: | kenj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [pcp] Steps towards a thread-safe libpcp |
| From: | Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 22 Mar 2011 13:27:44 +1100 (EST) |
| Cc: | pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <1300748129.12077.86.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
----- Original Message ----- > Making libpcp threadsafe is a (stretch) goal for PCP 4.0. Oh, related note, if we are going to do this 4.0 seems like the right time, so we should make it a concrete (non-stretchy) goal. I think for 4.0 we should also plan to transition away from the old libpcp_trace library and come up with a different plan, be that either telling people to use something else (like dtrace, stap, LTT/UST instrumentation) etc. I'll look into this, but if you could add that to the 4.0 list, that'd be great. cheers. -- Nathan |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [pcp] Steps towards a thread-safe libpcp, Nathan Scott |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [pcp] Steps towards a thread-safe libpcp, Ken McDonell |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [pcp] Steps towards a thread-safe libpcp, Nathan Scott |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [pcp] Steps towards a thread-safe libpcp, Ken McDonell |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |