IPC Timeouts

Jonathan S. Shapiro shap at eros-os.org
Wed Feb 23 18:58:44 CET 2005


On Wed, 2005-02-23 at 18:29 +0100, Ronald Aigner wrote:
> I'm personally convinced that you do not need finite IPC timeouts.

I believe that this was agreed at the Dresden L4 summit meeting. The
only well-motivated case for timeouts appears to be interacting with
physical real-world devices that have embedded timeouts (e.g. disk
drives -- if the 15ms seek is not complete in 20ms, your drive is dead).
That is, the "watchdog pattern".

My memory is that it was agreed that this case is rare enough, and
occurs in software that is unusual enough, that it is not justified to
preserve this function in the IPC.

The remaining cases of "no timeout" and "block indefinitely" should
remain.


Jonathan S. Shapiro





More information about the l4-hackers mailing list