From owner-freebsd-hackers  Tue Apr  9 10:24:25 1996
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id KAA26724
          for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 9 Apr 1996 10:24:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from phaeton.artisoft.com (phaeton.Artisoft.COM [198.17.250.211])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id KAA26715
          for <hackers@FreeBSD.org>; Tue, 9 Apr 1996 10:24:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from terry@localhost) by phaeton.artisoft.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id KAA05209; Tue, 9 Apr 1996 10:15:33 -0700
From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>
Message-Id: <199604091715.KAA05209@phaeton.artisoft.com>
Subject: Re: The F_SETOWN problem..
To: hasty@rah.star-gate.com (Amancio Hasty Jr.)
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 10:15:33 -0700 (MST)
Cc: terry@lambert.org, roell@blah.a.isar.de, hackers@FreeBSD.org,
        roell@xinside.com
In-Reply-To: <199604090527.WAA05609@rah.star-gate.com> from "Amancio Hasty Jr." at Apr 8, 96 10:27:52 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

>  > If the events still queued to process quantum, that would be a
>  > different matter, but then what about user space reentry, specifically
>  > AST stacks when multiple AST's fire before a single AST can finish
>  > processing?
> 
> Yeah, what about it ??

You will need a sperate stack space for each firing AST.  Just like
you need a seperate signal stack.

But since AST's *are* events, they do not have to fire in order; they
may interrupt each other.  Unlike signals.

Adding AST's would not be as easy as, for instance, replacing the
environment space with logical name support.


					Terry Lambert
					terry@lambert.org
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.