[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Task destruction

From: Marcus Brinkmann
Subject: Re: Task destruction
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 01:09:27 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.4i

On Tue, Aug 06, 2002 at 05:18:19PM +0200, Niels Möller wrote:
> Sure, but the problem is tasks that don't register themselves. I still
> want the Right Thing to happen for users, processes and un-registered
> tasks inside a child hurd.

I don't see any problem, can you be specific about what problem you are
thinking here?  I assume a proxy task server used for the child Hurd,
where the user of the child Hurd has privilege to register parent-child

> I think the complexity of the scheme I proposed is smaller than you
> think.

Actually, I think that our disagreement is more about the nature of the
task server we are talking about.  There is only one task server we must
have, and that is the one sitting directly on L4.  And I am somewhat concerned
about overloading it with semantics like Hurdish IPC.

That leaves other optional task servers, and we certainly want one in the
Hurd.  But it is not at all clear if there should be one shared, or one per
Hurd system.  I should think about that.  I will held my breath until I have
a better idea of what the responsibilities of these servers should be. 
For all the things you said I see a need, but I have not chewed on this
issue long enough to be ready to see where which feature should be, though I
am quite sure that the lowest level task server should not have any Hurdish


`Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' GNU      http://www.gnu.org    address@hidden
Marcus Brinkmann              The Hurd http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]