Re: kernel command line

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Roland McGrath <roland@gnu.org> writes:

> >  * Mach needs a facility to find out what task is the parent of
> >   a given task.
> 
> I'm not sure if there was a particular motivation for this other than the
> kind of thing in proc that I suggested.  

Also a process accounting motivation here too.

> We seem to be thinking the same things.  This is indeed the problem with
> the straightforward feature using the task ports.  As I understand it, you
> cannot transfer a dead name--it is not a port any longer.  A dead name is
> just a placeholder in the task's port name space preventing that name from
> being reused for a different port right until the user refs are all gone.

That's correct, but in the model of just "return null if the parent is
gone", why is this a problem?