On Sun, 2006-04-30 at 12:25 +0200, Bas Wijnen wrote: > On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 10:24:24PM -0400, Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote: > > 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". > > No, the test which was meant here (for single-copy reply capabilities) was: Is > there ever going to be a reply at all?
I believe that the thread became broken. The reason we were interested in the problem of non-reply is that we were trying to resolve the problem of indefinite blocking. The objective was to solve indefinite blocking. Solving non-reply was one approach to a solution. shap _______________________________________________ L4-hurd mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/l4-hurd
