Re: physmem, simple containers

[Niels Möller]

Marcus Brinkmann <address@hidden> writes:

> > Hmm. I thought the point of WORTEL_MSG_GET_CAP_REPLY was to return
> > container capabilities to wortel, which wortel could then use for mmap
> > (what else could you use a container for?). I must have miserably
> > misunderstood that part of the wortel-physmem interaction.
> 
> Wortel passes the container to the newly created tasks, like the task
> server.  Then the startup code in the new task creates mappings.

That makes sense. The pages are granted from wortel to physmem in the
reply to physmem's WORTEL_MSG_GET_CAP_REQUEST, and later mapped from
physmem into the new task.

But what about WORTEL_MSG_GET_CAP_REPLY? Despite its name, it is sent
by physmem to wortel (like all the other wortel requests). It seems
intended for having physmem give some capability to wortel. Exactly
what is it that physmem should give wortel? (My guess was that it
simply returns a container handle for the memory passed in the
corresponding WORTEL_MSG_GET_CAP_REQUEST, but it seems I guessed
wrong).

Regards,
/Niels