Re: heads up

[Ognyan Kulev]

Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
>    The reason that filesystems do not have user context is because I
>    was not sufficiently far-sighted at the time to realize the full
>    flexibility of the translator concept I had created.
>
> No, it is because they can't have "user context", but feel free to
> disprove me with some code.

In L4 port, user provides resources to server to do work.  For example, 
program provides region of its own memory to ext2fs so that ext2fs can 
fulfill read request.  (This can extend to providing memory pages to 
ext2fs that can't be used by user but hold ext2fs data structures that 
concern only the user.  (Wow, I started lecturing about L4 ;-) )

But you probably know all of this.  My point is that the same concept 
can be applied to "interactive context" passed to server.

Personally, I think that we need "context" abstraction.  In particular, 
I'm interested in "transaction context" that may allow atomic change in 
multiple filesystems.  I think the only context we have now is "auth 
context".

I was surprised to see that you talk about code -- we are talking about 
change in Hurd design now.

Regards,
ogi