From owner-freebsd-hackers  Thu Apr 11 11:59:44 1996
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id LAA01902
          for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 11:59:44 -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 LAA01895
          for <hackers@FreeBSD.org>; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 11:59:41 -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 LAA02569; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 11:57:03 -0700
Message-Id: <199604111857.LAA02569@rah.star-gate.com>
X-Mailer: exmh version 1.6.5 12/11/95
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.. 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 11 Apr 1996 11:04:06 PDT."
             <199604111804.LAA04310@phaeton.artisoft.com> 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 11:57:03 -0700
From: "Amancio Hasty Jr." <hasty@rah.star-gate.com>
Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

>>> Terry Lambert said:
 > > > AST's are easy.  It's the stacks they need to run while your program
 > > > is already using your only stack that are annoying.

Is this a problem? Lets look it at it from a different angle what happens
when the user's process stack space is exhausted-- the process dies.

So what is wrong with allocating a fix sized stack for handling ast events?

	Amancio