On Sun, 2006-04-30 at 03:58 +0200, Bas Wijnen wrote: > On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 09:26:50PM -0400, Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote: > > On Sat, 2006-04-22 at 19:55 +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: > > > Here is, in an informal manner, one of the invariants I mean: When a > > > process is in a call, and waiting on a reply (send-once) capability, > > > from a global system perspective one can identify a process "on which" > > > the caller is waiting: Namely the process holding the reply > > > capability. > > > > But in a scheduler activation design no process is ever waiting in this > > fashion. How should this be specified in a context of scheduler > > activations? > > I think Marcus was talking about a single-copy reply-capability here. So > there's only one process holding it.
Perhaps, but this does not change the fact that the process is not waiting! > Even if technically the process isn't "waiting" for the reply, in practice it > will in fact be waiting in the sense that it cannot continue with something > until it received a reply. This doesn't mean it doesn't do other things, but > it's waiting nonetheless. But the test of interest here is not "is it waiting for a reply". That is harmless. The test of interest here is "is it prevented from getting useful work done". shap _______________________________________________ L4-hurd mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/l4-hurd
