Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 20:32:57 -0700 From: "Amancio Hasty Jr." <hasty@rah.star-gate.com> To: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> Cc: wong@rogerswave.ca, roell@blah.a.isar.de, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, roell@xinside.com Subject: Re: The F_SETOWN problem.. Message-ID: <199604120332.UAA05440@rah.star-gate.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 11 Apr 1996 13:36:19 PDT." <199604112036.NAA04732@phaeton.artisoft.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>>> Terry Lambert said:
> > >>> Terry Lambert said:
> > > > > AST's are easy. It's the stacks they need to run while your progra
m
> > > > > 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
?
>
> It is common to put a huge amount of code in an AST, including
> potentially blocking system calls and calls to start other
> activity that could, itself, result in an AST. Which is to say
> that a small fixed size stack is unacceptable.
>
> In many cases, the entire program operates in nothing but AST's --
> if you have the VMS source code, look at the PHONE utility.
BTW: I have implemented file servers based on ASTs -- old hat stuff.
I still think that a small stack size for handling AST's will suffice.
Amancio
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199604120332.UAA05440>