At Sat, 29 Apr 2006 21:26:50 -0400, "Jonathan S. Shapiro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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?
Obviously in this design you do the obvious transition by replacing "process" by "FCRB", where only the special class of FCRBs are considered that are used in a call-like fashion. I am very well aware that with the current semantics, there is no way to express to the kernel that call-like semantics are desired. That is exactly the perceived problem. Thanks, Marcus _______________________________________________ L4-hurd mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/l4-hurd
