[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


From: ness
Subject: Re: On PATH_MAX
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 20:00:37 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (X11/20051031)

Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote:
On Thu, 2005-11-10 at 16:02 +0100, ness wrote:

Bas Wijnen wrote:

On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 01:29:21AM -0500, Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote:

Why shouldn't the thread of execution and scheduling time be provided by the caller, too?

If the server can make guarantees about latency (which is useful anyway, to
say the least), it should be able to tell how much schedule it needs.  Then it
may demand that much from the client, and the client really transfers it, that
is, it isn't gone when the client is destroyed.

Sth. similar came to my mind:
The caller calls the server. It grants a thread of execution (the thread musn't be revokable). It also grants a minimum schedule (needed to recover).

The client cannot grant a guarantee that the client does not have. The
client's schedule is revocable, therefore any schedule that it might
grant is revocable.

Why should a given schedule be revokable?

Also, do you have any idea how complicated this would be to actually
implement? Or to use?

Well, I not really. I imagine it extremely complicated. Currently this only a thought experiment for me.



reply via email to

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