[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: kernel command line
From: |
Thomas Bushnell, BSG |
Subject: |
Re: kernel command line |
Date: |
15 May 2001 15:01:58 -0700 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.0803 (Gnus v5.8.3) Emacs/20.7 |
Marcus Brinkmann <Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de> writes:
> Yes, this would work out the way you described it. How about Mach keeping
> track of the task hierarchy? I am not sure how exactly this would need to
> be implemented. Mach could keep a pointer to the parent task in the task
> structure. Someone having the host control port (?) could extract a send
> right to this parent task port. Proc can match this (? does proc keep a
> send right to every task? Have to check.).
My idea is that a suitably privileged task could, given a port for
task T, get a port for its parent. If the parent is dead, it gets
null.
> However, I am not sure what happens if the parent task dies.
> If proc keeps a send right, it will become a dead name. Then we just have
> to make sure that we will return the same dead name on request.
There is no such thing as "the same dead name".
- Re: kernel command line, (continued)
- Re: kernel command line, Marcus Brinkmann, 2001/05/08
- Re: kernel command line, Roland McGrath, 2001/05/14
- Re: kernel command line, Marcus Brinkmann, 2001/05/14
- Re: kernel command line, Roland McGrath, 2001/05/15
- Re: kernel command line, Thomas Bushnell, BSG, 2001/05/15
- Re: kernel command line, Roland McGrath, 2001/05/15
- Re: kernel command line, Thomas Bushnell, BSG, 2001/05/15
- Re: kernel command line, Roland McGrath, 2001/05/18
- Re: kernel command line, Thomas Bushnell, BSG, 2001/05/18
- Re: kernel command line, Roland McGrath, 2001/05/18
- Re: kernel command line,
Thomas Bushnell, BSG <=