On Tue, Oct 02, 2001 at 03:54:46PM -0400, Roland McGrath wrote: > But that's already implemented! The existing iopb code works exactly this > way. All we have to change is its use of device_t to use a generic > ipc_port pointer instead.
Fair enough. And you already said that it can get a port matching a bit mask, so it's as generic as it can get (before I realized that I was worried about just having a similar set of io port permission groups as we have with the devices in gnumach). > Yeah, that's why. You don't hand anybody your task port if you can help > it. proc has to have it, but nobody else does. That's a pretty good reason, which I overlooked. > The more nebulous reasons are that you might get this capability, > hang on to it for later, pass it to other tasks, etc. That's not actually an issue, as the server could still hand out such ports But I see the problems, and why your solution is better. Thanks, Marcus -- `Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debian http://www.debian.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] Marcus Brinkmann GNU http://www.gnu.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.marcus-brinkmann.de _______________________________________________ Bug-hurd mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
