comparison between GNU Mach and Mach used by xMach

2001-05-11 Thread Marcus Brinkmann
Hi, I compared GNU Mach with the Mach available from the xmach site (www.xmach.org). They have a couple of printf's more at strategically places. We have a lot of bug fixes and some new features in the virtual memory handling by Thomas (internal vs external pages). There was no change in xMach

Re: [PATCH] settrans -gl only kills the active translator

2001-05-11 Thread Gordon Matzigkeit
Perhaps the question to ask is: under what circumstances is `--disconnect' desirable? Indeed, according to Roland's explanation, you would need --disconnect when the filesystem server isn't honouring the fsys_goaway (or, alternatively, you could just kill the process). I like `--detach' a little

Re: [PATCH] settrans -gl only kills the active translator

2001-05-11 Thread Niels Möller
Neal H Walfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > What does --force do in the current code? From a user perspective, I > > think --force should do whatever is needed to get the translator > > disappear. In this case, it should probably try to make the translator > > go away nicely, and if that fail

Re: [PATCH] System V Shared memory interface

2001-05-11 Thread Thomas Bushnell, BSG
Neal H Walfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Basically, half of shmid_ds and retreived with > `shmctl (id, IPC_STAT, &shmid_ds)', e.g. number of current attaches, > shm_atime, shm_dtime and shm_ctime. Blech. Why not just keep track of that information in a file somewhere?

Re: [PATCH] settrans -gl only kills the active translator

2001-05-11 Thread Neal H Walfield
> I think this help is a little confusing and hard to understand. How > would you explain the difference between --force and --disconnect to a > user? > > What does --force do in the current code? From a user perspective, I > think --force should do whatever is needed to get the translator > disa

Re: [PATCH] settrans -gl only kills the active translator

2001-05-11 Thread Niels Möller
Neal H Walfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >{"recursive", 'R', 0, 0, "Shutdown its children too"}, >{"force", 'f', 0, 0, "If it doesn't want to die, force it"}, >{"nosync", 'S', 0, 0, "Don't sync it before killing it"}, > + {"disconnect", 'd', 0, 0, "Disconnect the tra

Re: [PATCH] System V Shared memory interface

2001-05-11 Thread Neal H Walfield
On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 11:09:48AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > Neal H Walfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > If so, how are we going to create a POSIX conforming implementation > > without rewriting parts of a filesystem anyway (e.g. statistic > > collection). > > What do you mean b

Re: [PATCH] settrans -gl only kills the active translator

2001-05-11 Thread Neal H Walfield
> Your code does nothing to either translator setting, but just sends an > fsys_goaway to the active translator. This leaves it up to the translator > to die or not as it chooses. The file_set_translator RPC that will be made > by "settrans -a FILE" to the parent filesystem will do the same fsys