Cases I knew of LWP fileserver being used: Linux with "new" pthreads support until what turned out to be bugs in our pthread support were addressed. LD_ASSUME_KERNEL also could be used at the time to "assume" an older kernel and assume LinuxThreads. Previous NetBSD versions: their pthread support was buggy.
As far as I know, the LWP fileserver (nor volserver) are neither necessary nor desirable anywhere. On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 5:03 AM, Simon Wilkinson <s...@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote: > We're currently maintaining 3 versions of the AFS fileserver - the LWP one, a > "normal" pthreaded fileserver, and the demand attach fileserver. The "normal" > pthreaded fileserver has been the default for all of our supported platforms > since the 1.4 release. > > I'd like to simplify the build tree, and the fileserver code, by removing > support for the LWP fileserver. We have a long term goal of removing LWP from > the tree entirely, so this is one step along the way. If I do so, this change > would only target master - the LWP fileserver would remain on the 1.6 tree. > > Is there anyone out there deliberately making use of the LWP fileserver who > would be affected by its removal from master? > > Cheers, > > Simon > > _______________________________________________ > OpenAFS-info mailing list > OpenAFS-info@openafs.org > https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info > -- Derrick _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-info mailing list OpenAFS-info@openafs.org https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
