On Tue, 2006-04-25 at 16:25 +0200, Bas Wijnen wrote: > On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 10:03:56AM -0400, Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote: > > I agree. Also, there is something else that we all agree on: if one > > mechanism can handle two problems with acceptable efficiency, it is a > > mistake to introduce a second mechanism for the second problem. > > > > So I pose the following test case: > > ... > > If we conclude that we need watchdogs for this (or for something else), > > then I suggest that kernel-supported capability death notice (any kind) > > is unnecessary and should not be implemented. > > I disagree. Although it seems likely that a watchdog (possibly in the form of > the user himself) is needed for servers entering infinite loops, I don't think > this is an adequate solution. There just isn't anything better, so we'll have > to accept it anyway. That doesn't mean we must accept it as a solution for > situations where good alternatives exist as well, though.
Certainly not. What we must accept is that *any* solution we have identified has problems. The question is: how many bad solutions to different parts of the problem must we accept simultaneously? shap _______________________________________________ L4-hurd mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/l4-hurd
