> > Put another way: you always have "send-rights" to any "port" that is
> > listening to messages.
>
> What establishes the existence of a port?
Actually, what is meant is that any L4 task can initiate IPC to any
other L4 task, if it nows the tid (task id). L4 has a hierarchical
"Clans and Chi
Farid Hajji <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Could you please point at the files/functions that depend on
> no-senders notifications?
First, why we need them:
We need to allow file servers (and other servers too) to deallocate
resources when there will be no further sends to a given port. In the
> > Basically, it proved difficult to emulate the complete Mach API. If you
> > want to implement L4Mach, it will most likely provide just a subset of
> > Mach, so that we can get the Hurd up and running (in a first step).
> Making the Hurd run on L4 should be done by porting it. Making L4
> emul
> > Absolutely. No-senders/dead port notification is one of the hardest parts
> > to port to a non-mach kernel, like L4.
> Please don't talk about these as if they were the same thing. Dead
> name notifications are not very important.
As said, sorry for the confusion. no-senders was meant.
> No
www.paradice.coolfreehost.com
___
Bug-hurd mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
Ian Duggan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I dug around some and found this document describing the Spring OS
> system (Sun research kernel). Spring wasn't adopted, apparently
> because Sun's customers were pissed off about the pains of switching
> from SunOS to Solaris,
Hmm. My understanding is t
> I hope there's a natural L4 way to do "wait for the first out of n
> events", and that is what should be used for select. I don't know
> what, but figuring that out is important when designing the libports
> implementation on L4.
>
> I guess one needs a to first send an L4 rpc to each server t
Ian Duggan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It's possible to do an IPC receive with a timeout (possibly indefinite)
> with L4. It should be possible to mimic the described behavior using
> this, no?
If I have understood select on the Hurd correctly, this is the rpc
that is used (from hurd/io.defs):
