Re: new exec server protocol

[Niels Möller]

Marcus Brinkmann <address@hidden> writes:

> On Thu, May 22, 2003 at 04:40:18PM +0200, Niels Möller wrote:
> > To me it seems to make things simpler to always have death of the last
> > thread imply death of the task. So let me rephrase the questions as
> > "do we have any use for tasks that are in the alive-state, but have no
> > threads"?
> 
> Not sure.  Do we want to disallow this?  It is simple to keep an inactive
> thread around in a task, although it has a slightly stupid touch.

It just seems pointless. And if a task happens to have all its threads
call thread_suicide, who's going to change the task to either the
running or the dead state?

BTW, what happen's if the pager thread commits suicide?

> > My preferred generalization is to to replace accounting id:s with
> > lists <ownser, id>. Then proc is privileged with respect to tasks with
> > accounting id <proc, x>, but any other task A can attach entries <A,
> > x> to tasks it creates, and be privileged with respect to those tasks.
> 
> These are already handles.  I think you are reinventing the wheel. ;)

Right, they're handles to collections of tasks.

Still, I think I'll go on hacking with raw, handmade "handles" until I
have some more experience, and somebody writes up libport.

/Niels