[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?
Thanks,
Marcus
--
`Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' GNU http://www.gnu.org address@hidden
Marcus Brinkmann The Hurd http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/
address@hidden
http://www.marcus-brinkmann.de/
- proxy memory objects, Marcus Brinkmann, 2002/11/19
- Re: proxy memory objects, Marcus Brinkmann, 2002/11/19
- Re: proxy memory objects, Thomas Bushnell, BSG, 2002/11/21
- Re: proxy memory objects,
Marcus Brinkmann <=
- Re: proxy memory objects, Thomas Bushnell, BSG, 2002/11/21
- Re: proxy memory objects, Marcus Brinkmann, 2002/11/21
- Re: proxy memory objects, Thomas Bushnell, BSG, 2002/11/21
- Re: proxy memory objects, Marcus Brinkmann, 2002/11/22
- Re: proxy memory objects, Thomas Bushnell, BSG, 2002/11/22
Re: proxy memory objects, Marcus Brinkmann, 2002/11/20