From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Apr 9 22:50:09 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id WAA28939 for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 9 Apr 1996 22:50:09 -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 WAA28902 for ; Tue, 9 Apr 1996 22:50:01 -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 WAA02746; Tue, 9 Apr 1996 22:48:20 -0700 Message-Id: <199604100548.WAA02746@rah.star-gate.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 1.6.5 12/11/95 To: Terry Lambert cc: wong@rogerswave.ca (Wong), 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 18:26:11 PDT." <199604100126.SAA06479@phaeton.artisoft.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Tue, 09 Apr 1996 22:48:19 -0700 From: "Amancio Hasty Jr." Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk >>> 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