From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Apr 11 20:35:48 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id UAA14109 for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 20:35:48 -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 UAA14104 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 20:35:40 -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 UAA05440; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 20:32:58 -0700 Message-Id: <199604120332.UAA05440@rah.star-gate.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 1.6.5 12/11/95 To: Terry Lambert cc: wong@rogerswave.ca, 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 13:36:19 PDT." <199604112036.NAA04732@phaeton.artisoft.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 20:32:57 -0700 From: "Amancio Hasty Jr." Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk >>> 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