Date: Tue, 09 Apr 1996 13:53:01 -0700 From: "Amancio Hasty Jr." <hasty@rah.star-gate.com> To: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> Cc: roell@blah.a.isar.de, hackers@FreeBSD.org, roell@xinside.com Subject: Re: The F_SETOWN problem.. Message-ID: <199604092053.NAA02328@rah.star-gate.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 09 Apr 1996 10:15:33 PDT." <199604091715.KAA05209@phaeton.artisoft.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I guess is easier to fire off a process to handle each separate asynch io stream 8) Cheers, Amancio >>> Terry Lambert said: > > > 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. >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199604092053.NAA02328>