At Fri, 21 Apr 2006 20:23:41 -0400, "Jonathan S. Shapiro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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.
Yeah, sorry, I messed that up. In L4, it is the endpoint that provides the indirection, in Coyotos it actually is the FCRB. Which is to say: Instead of waiting on a remote thread, the calling thread is waiting on the endpoint/FCRB. I tried to have one description to losely catch L4 X.2/EROS vs new L4s and Coytotos at the same time. In hindsight, that didn't work too well. > 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. Yes. Thanks, Marcus _______________________________________________ L4-hurd mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/l4-hurd
