[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Do we want a server on `/servers/machine' (or similar)?

From: Thomas Schwinge
Subject: Re: Do we want a server on `/servers/machine' (or similar)?
Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 00:50:43 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.11

[Remove hurd-devel.]


In the server T (`/servers/ioperm') I essentially have...

S_i386_io_perm_create (mach_port_t port, io_port_t from, io_port_t to,
                       mach_port_t *io_perm)
  kern_return_t err;

[Do some checks on PORT.]

  err = i386_io_perm_create (devmaster, from, to, io_perm);

  return err;

... to serve invocations of `i386_io_perm_create' on T and -- after the
needed checking -- pass the request to the device-master port, invoking
`i386_io_perm_create' on there.  This works.

But there is one problem.  If the requestee (the program that invoked
`i386_io_perm_create' on T) terminates, the server T won't (tell the
kernel to) destroy the resources that have been allocated by invoking
`i386_io_perm_create' on the device-master port.  This is because there
is no association between the port `port' and these resources.  How to
establish such a relationship?

If `port' becomes dead, `io_perm' should be deallocated as well, but how?


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]