From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Apr 9 12:55:15 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id MAA07762 for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 9 Apr 1996 12:55:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rah.star-gate.com (rah.star-gate.com [204.188.121.18]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id MAA07733 for ; Tue, 9 Apr 1996 12:55:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rah.star-gate.com (localhost.star-gate.com [127.0.0.1]) by rah.star-gate.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA02328; Tue, 9 Apr 1996 13:53:01 -0700 Message-Id: <199604092053.NAA02328@rah.star-gate.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 1.6.5 12/11/95 To: Terry Lambert cc: roell@blah.a.isar.de, hackers@FreeBSD.org, roell@xinside.com Subject: Re: The F_SETOWN problem.. In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 09 Apr 1996 10:15:33 PDT." <199604091715.KAA05209@phaeton.artisoft.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Tue, 09 Apr 1996 13:53:01 -0700 From: "Amancio Hasty Jr." Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk 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. >