Greetings, Robert.
Looking over your test program, I don't think you are actually testing
the elevator algorithm at all. There are a couple of key flaws:
* The reads and writes are synchronous, so the elevator algorithm
at _most_ gets to effect the blocks within a single read or
Greetings, Robert.
Looking over your test program, I don't think you are actually testing
the elevator algorithm at all. There are a couple of key flaws:
* The reads and writes are synchronous, so the elevator algorithm
at _most_ gets to effect the blocks within a single read or
be any
adverse side effect to doubleing or quadrupling the size of the system
call table? At first blush, I can't think of any reasons not to.
That said, as a stopgap, I still believe a char device could do the
trick
> "J. Robert von Behren" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> &g
David Howells wrote:
> (2) Some sort of support for (dynamically allocated) system calls implemented
> in modules.
FWIW, this can be done with relatively low overhead by creating a
miscelaneous character device, and just using write() to write in the
arguments. This is a bit worse than
be any
adverse side effect to doubleing or quadrupling the size of the system
call table? At first blush, I can't think of any reasons not to.
That said, as a stopgap, I still believe a char device could do the
trick
"J. Robert von Behren" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
FWIW, this c
5 matches
Mail list logo
