> Actually, fs_notify.defs is using routines, not simpleroutines, and we have > special hacks in libdiskfs and console to get simpleroutines... delivering > them synchronously would work as well, although it would not be so good if > you have multiple clients.
I think that might just have been an oversight, and it seems entirely reasonable for filesystems to refuse to do anything synchronous (let the message queuing do it). > BTW, if the port queue is full, the call blocks in the server, even if it is > a simple routine, because the MiG stubs don't have a timeout (or notify > port). I just tried it: Using ports_manage...one_thread, the server will > block during operation, and the effect is that we have almost synchronizity > where the server is always a couple RPCs ahead (as many as the queue can > hold). In the case of several clients, this would block other clients, too. Ack. It should use timeout=0 and let the user lose if he didn't drain his port queue fast enough. _______________________________________________ Bug-hurd mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
