Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 10:15:33 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: hasty@rah.star-gate.com (Amancio Hasty Jr.) Cc: terry@lambert.org, roell@blah.a.isar.de, hackers@FreeBSD.org, roell@xinside.com Subject: Re: The F_SETOWN problem.. Message-ID: <199604091715.KAA05209@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <199604090527.WAA05609@rah.star-gate.com> from "Amancio Hasty Jr." at Apr 8, 96 10:27:52 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > If the events still queued to process quantum, that would be a > > different matter, but then what about user space reentry, specifically > > AST stacks when multiple AST's fire before a single AST can finish > > processing? > > Yeah, what about it ?? You will need a sperate stack space for each firing AST. Just like you need a seperate signal stack. But since AST's *are* events, they do not have to fire in order; they may interrupt each other. Unlike signals. Adding AST's would not be as easy as, for instance, replacing the environment space with logical name support. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199604091715.KAA05209>