[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 Bushnell BSG
Subject: Re: Do we want a server on `/servers/machine' (or similar)?
Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 17:46:11 -0700

On Fri, 2007-05-11 at 23:45 +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> Hello!
> On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 07:32:31PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > Um, well, you could keep track of the relationship, and establish the
> > rule that a user of i386_io_perm_create sent to this special server must
> > keep the request port open as long as they want the mapping to stay
> > alive.  
> Wouldn't there be a way to just _move_ the send right to the freshly
> created i/o permission kernel object to the target task (which is the
> requesting task in this case)?  So far, I haven't been able to figure out
> how to do that correctly.
> Requestee R invokes `i386_io_perm_create' on the server S,
> `/servers/io_perm'.  S invokes `i386_io_perm_create' on the device-master
> port, which returns a new handle H to a freshly created kernel object.
> Then S _moves_ H to R (*HOW?*) so that S itself won't reference H
> anymore.  Then, as soon as R dies, H will become invalid and the kernel
> will receive a no-senders notification.  Wouldn't it work that way?

Why not just reply with the right that the kernel has handed S?

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

reply via email to

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