Roland McGrath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > * Mach needs a facility to find out what task is the parent of
> > a given task.
>
> I'm not sure if there was a particular motivation for this other than the
> kind of thing in proc that I suggested.
Also a process accounting motivation here too.
> We seem to be thinking the same things. This is indeed the problem with
> the straightforward feature using the task ports. As I understand it, you
> cannot transfer a dead name--it is not a port any longer. A dead name is
> just a placeholder in the task's port name space preventing that name from
> being reused for a different port right until the user refs are all gone.
That's correct, but in the model of just "return null if the parent is
gone", why is this a problem?
_______________________________________________
Bug-hurd mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
