[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: proxy memory objects

From: Marcus Brinkmann
Subject: Re: proxy memory objects
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 10:41:40 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.4i

On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 09:49:29PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> I don't think this makes sense.  What task?

Yeah, I know that this was bogus, too.  But we have to send it somewhere.
Maybe it should be mach_host_self to specify the kernel which creates and
holds the proxy memory object.

> I think we should send it to the memory object, that's the only thing
> that makes sense.

I agree that this is ok, if you want that additional level of indirection.

> *THEN* the memory object should have a special hack call to the
> kernel--to the memory object control port--that creates the actual
> proxy object.

This was the first thought I had when I realized that the memobj RPC
doesn't go the kernel.  But the memory object control port doesn't exist
before the first mapping is established.  It is for controlling a memory
object that is actually used by the kernel.  The memory objct we have
created is probably not used until we gave out the proxy object.
Or did I misunderstood that?


`Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' GNU    address@hidden
Marcus Brinkmann              The Hurd

reply via email to

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