[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: RFC: Lightweight synchronization mechanism for gnumach
From: |
Richard Braun |
Subject: |
Re: RFC: Lightweight synchronization mechanism for gnumach |
Date: |
Sun, 28 Feb 2016 20:55:08 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) |
On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 04:13:34PM -0300, Agustina Arzille wrote:
> I named it differently because I feel "futex" doesn't really convey what it
> does, but I agree that consistency with standards (even de facto ones) is
> a good idea.
I agree, Linux sucks at names and they even acknowledge it. As long as
we can build a simple wrapper in userspace, it's fine.
> On the other hand, I would prefer it if we made some changes to the
> interface
> as implemented in the Linux kernel. Linux has a single, monolithic syscall
> that multiplexes according to an "operation" parameter. For gnumach, I think
> having separate RPC's is the better way.
Again, I agree, RPCs are operations. And again, if a simple wrapper can
be built on top, it's all fine.
--
Richard Braun
- Re: RFC: Lightweight synchronization mechanism for gnumach, (continued)
Re: RFC: Lightweight synchronization mechanism for gnumach, Richard Braun, 2016/02/28
Re: RFC: Lightweight synchronization mechanism for gnumach, Richard Braun, 2016/02/28
Re: RFC: Lightweight synchronization mechanism for gnumach, Samuel Thibault, 2016/02/28