[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: EROS/Coyotos fault handers vs l4 pager hierarchy
From: |
Jonathan S. Shapiro |
Subject: |
Re: EROS/Coyotos fault handers vs l4 pager hierarchy |
Date: |
Sun, 23 Oct 2005 13:23:43 -0400 |
On Sat, 2005-10-22 at 12:23 +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> At Sat, 22 Oct 2005 03:07:16 +0200,
> Matthieu Lemerre <address@hidden> wrote:
> > Marcus Brinkmann <address@hidden> writes:
> > > I think there is just a misunderstanding here. The "sender of a page"
> > > in our Hurd-on-L4 design for example is always physmem.
This is the kind of mistake I was talking about. It *may* be true that
the only component of *Hurd* that performs a MAP operation is PhysMem.
It does not follow that this is the only source of MAP operations in the
system. Therefore, this condition is insufficient to ensure real-time
compatibility.
shap
- EROS/Coyotos address spaces, Jonathan S. Shapiro, 2005/10/19
- Re: EROS/Coyotos fault handers vs l4 pager hierarchy, Jonathan S. Shapiro, 2005/10/21
- Re: EROS/Coyotos fault handers vs l4 pager hierarchy, Marcus Brinkmann, 2005/10/22
- Re: EROS/Coyotos fault handers vs l4 pager hierarchy, Jonathan S. Shapiro, 2005/10/23
- Re: EROS/Coyotos fault handers vs l4 pager hierarchy, Marcus Brinkmann, 2005/10/23
- Re: EROS/Coyotos fault handers vs l4 pager hierarchy, Jonathan S. Shapiro, 2005/10/24
Re: EROS/Coyotos address spaces, Marcus Brinkmann, 2005/10/20
Re: EROS/Coyotos address spaces, Bas Wijnen, 2005/10/20