On Sat, 2006-04-22 at 02:09 +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: > At Sat, 22 Apr 2006 01:42:41 +0200, > Marcus Brinkmann wrote: > > In the upcoming L4 versions, and in Coyotos, destruction of the > > receiver of a reply capability does not cause any action to be > > triggered: Pending RPCs are not aborted. This is because there is an > > extra level of indirection between the reply capability and the thread > > (first class receive buffer). > > Clarification: FCRB here is meant as a synonymous for thread (one is > an L4 term, the other a Coyotos term). The indirection is of course > the endpoint.
Marcus: I believe that you may need to look at the FCRB specification more carefully. An FCRB is bound directly to some receiving process (which is equivalent to a thread). There is no additional endpoint. If we can arrange for the FCRB sender capability to get invoked, that's all we need. I also want to add one addition to your earlier discussion: We want "reply capabilities" to trigger a death message. We do *not* want "entry capabilities" to trigger a message. This means that the kernel must have some way to distinguish these two types of sender capabilities. shap _______________________________________________ L4-hurd mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/l4-hurd
