Date: Tue, 09 Apr 1996 22:48:19 -0700 From: "Amancio Hasty Jr." <hasty@rah.star-gate.com> To: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> Cc: wong@rogerswave.ca (Wong), roell@blah.a.isar.de, hackers@freebsd.org, roell@xinside.com Subject: Re: The F_SETOWN problem.. Message-ID: <199604100548.WAA02746@rah.star-gate.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 09 Apr 1996 18:26:11 PDT." <199604100126.SAA06479@phaeton.artisoft.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>>> Terry Lambert said: > > > 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... However, we at least will need a mechanism to deliver asynchronous events;thus, one step closer to R.T. system 8) Cheers, Amancio
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199604100548.WAA02746>