From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Apr 9 18:37:48 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id SAA09444 for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 9 Apr 1996 18:37:48 -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 SAA09438 for ; Tue, 9 Apr 1996 18:37:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from terry@localhost) by phaeton.artisoft.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id SAA06479; Tue, 9 Apr 1996 18:26:12 -0700 From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199604100126.SAA06479@phaeton.artisoft.com> Subject: Re: The F_SETOWN problem.. To: wong@rogerswave.ca (Wong) Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 18:26:11 -0700 (MST) Cc: terry@lambert.org, hasty@rah.star-gate.com, roell@blah.a.isar.de, hackers@FreeBSD.org, roell@xinside.com In-Reply-To: from "Wong" at Apr 9, 96 08:45:58 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 > > Adding AST's would not be as easy as, for instance, replacing the > > environment space with logical name support. > > > > yeah, you need kernel support for this. each AST is like a letter > to the process. kernel has to allocate/de-allocate such a "letter" > dynamically. > > If we can implement that, we are not far from real time unix. AST's are easy. It's the stacks they need to run while your program is already using your only stack that are annoying. Queued event delivery shouldn't have any impact on how RT the system is or isn't (maybe I just can't see what you mean...). Message passing does not a R.T. system make, in my book... Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.