-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote: > On Mon, 2006-04-24 at 20:46 +0200, Tom Bachmann wrote: >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote: >>> 1. Incoming messages on any valid, unblocked FCRB. >>> 2. Especially, incoming idempotent messages. >>> >>> So one way to guard against a failing server is to use idempotent timer >>> events to implement a "heartbeat" -- in much the way that TCP does. >>> >> I don't get it. What do we gain from artificially awaking M? Is the >> FCRB->M C invoked still blocked after step 5? > > We need to avoid words like "blocked" in this discussion, because that > is what is causing the confusion.
you used it (``1. Incoming messages on any valid, unblocked FCRB.''), i just quoted you. > First, let me repeat the steps for > reference: > >> 1. C has invoked some FCRB->M, passing some RFCRB->C >> 2. C yields the CPU >> 3. M has been activated by arrival of C's message >> 4. M has invoked some FCRB->S, passing some RCFRB->M >> 5. M yields the CPU >> 6. S has been activated by arrival of M's message >> ?. S *may* eventually invoke RFCRB->M, but cannot be >> sure. This is the ``problem.'' > > To answer your question, it isn't important whether FCRB->M is available > after step 5. This depends on whether M wishes to be multi-threaded. multithreaded in what sense? the continuation style of programming? > This really has nothing to do with the problem we are trying to solve, > which is that S may fail to return to M. > yes. your explination makes this clear. - -- - -ness- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFETSoKvD/ijq9JWhsRAnwgAJ42VfM0fHm9aiS0DC/a2DRzD4olPgCfUBJw qy5I2cn22c/N38wQhZRt2lU= =YxDt -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ L4-hurd mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/l4-hurd
