[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: A comment about changing kernels
From: |
Bernhard Kauer |
Subject: |
Re: A comment about changing kernels |
Date: |
Mon, 31 Oct 2005 11:39:15 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.9i |
On Mon, Oct 31, 2005 at 01:05:20AM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > server protocols will be session based. To establish a new session
> > with a server the server has to be called anyway, which nullifies
> > the advantage of copy().
>
> You won't actually call this policy neutral, will you?
Sorry, but I do not understand your question.
Perhaps I should give an example to make my statement clear:
Suppose a client A want to transfer a capability to a session to client B.
Client A can copy or map this capability to B and let B invoke the capbility
to get a new session from the server S. Or A can call S and say: "give this
capability to B". Both cases need independently of copy/map 4 IPC's.
Bernhard
- Re: A comment about changing kernels, (continued)
- Re: A comment about changing kernels, Neal H. Walfield, 2005/10/28
- Re: A comment about changing kernels, Bernhard Kauer, 2005/10/29
- Re: A comment about changing kernels, Matthieu Lemerre, 2005/10/29
- Re: A comment about changing kernels, Marcus Brinkmann, 2005/10/30
- Re: A comment about changing kernels, Jonathan S. Shapiro, 2005/10/30
- Re: A comment about changing kernels, Espen Skoglund, 2005/10/31
- Re: A comment about changing kernels,
Bernhard Kauer <=
- Re: A comment about changing kernels, Neal H. Walfield, 2005/10/31
- Re: A comment about changing kernels, Jonathan S. Shapiro, 2005/10/31
- Re: A comment about changing kernels, Bernhard Kauer, 2005/10/31
- Re: A comment about changing kernels, Jonathan S. Shapiro, 2005/10/31
Re: A comment about changing kernels, Jonathan S. Shapiro, 2005/10/27
A generic IDL for the Hurd (was: A comment about changing kernels), Matthieu Lemerre, 2005/10/31