l4-hackers April 1999

l4-hackers@os.inf.tu-dresden.de

2 participants
8 discussions

New Fiasco snapshot
by Michael Hohmuth 10 May '99

10 May '99

Hackers, I've made available a new Fiasco source code snapshot (990428), nicknamed version 0.6. It contains numerous bug fixes and two new features: - Long-message IPC has been implemented (but hasn't yet been tested extensively). - Jean Wolter has contributed a new stand-alone kernel debugger. It allows you to see critical kernel state on your text console. I've also released new snapshots for the L4 runtime support (required) and for our version of the OSKit, as well as a new patch … [View More]

2 1

Re: Still missing something ...
by Michael Hohmuth 28 Apr '99

28 Apr '99

kermit the frog <kermit(a)tower.com.ar> writes: > Hello, thanks for always answering (im such a pain in the ... (-: > > Well, this time, after following Michael's instructions (heres a piece of > the code) : > th = l4_myself(); > printf("rmgr_init()\n"); > rmgr_init(); > printf("Hello, task: %d, thread: %d\n", th.id.task, th.id.lthread); > > sigma0.id.task = 2; > sigma0.id.lthread = 0; > > recv.id.task = rmgr_get_task(6); > … [View More]

1 0

Still missing something ...
by kermit the frog 28 Apr '99

28 Apr '99

Hello, thanks for always answering (im such a pain in the ... (-: Well, this time, after following Michael's instructions (heres a piece of the code) : th = l4_myself(); printf("rmgr_init()\n"); rmgr_init(); printf("Hello, task: %d, thread: %d\n", th.id.task, th.id.lthread); sigma0.id.task = 2; sigma0.id.lthread = 0; recv.id.task = rmgr_get_task(6); recv.id.chief = th.id.task ; recv.id.lthread = 0; recv = l4_task_new(recv, 5, (dword_t) task+(4096*2), (dword_t)task, sigma0)… [View More]

1 0

Re: Am i missing something here ?
by Michael Hohmuth 27 Apr '99

27 Apr '99

kermit the frog <kermit(a)tower.com.ar> writes: > First of all, thanks for replying. I happen to have another problem. If i > try to create a new task, no matter what i do i always get the message > > 'KDB: task new: not chief' > > the line im using to create a task is as follows: > recv = l4_task_new(recv, 6, (dword_t) task+(4096*2), (dword_t)task, > L4_NIL_ID); > Where task is a function defined void task(void); Im asuming here that the > stack will … [View More]

1 0

Re: Am i missing something here ?
by kermit the frog 27 Apr '99

27 Apr '99

Yeah, that could be a solution (the loop) but, ass soon as i try to create the new task it dumps the register contents and then asks me if i want to reboot ... i guess ill have to recompile it with a different # and boot to try every new configuration ... Cervi~no Ulises <kermit(a)tower.com.ar> <c-3087-2(a)unrctu.edu.ar> ............................................................................... On Tue, 27 Apr 1999, Gernot Heiser wrote: > >>>>> "ktf" == … [View More]

1 0

Re: Am i missing something here ?
by kermit the frog 27 Apr '99

27 Apr '99

Well, ive attached the source code of my program. To anser to your question, recv is initialized to task=6; ltherad=0; i know that my program starts with task=5 so im using the next task available. Cervi~no Ulises <kermit(a)tower.com.ar> <c-3087-2(a)unrctu.edu.ar> ...............................................................................

1 0

Re: Am i missing something here ?
by Michael Hohmuth 27 Apr '99

27 Apr '99

kermit the frog <kermit(a)tower.com.ar> writes: > Heres the thing, whenever I start 2 or more task/threads that contain some > sort of a 'pause' in the for l4_i386_ipc_receive(L4_NIL_ID ... it seems to > be that all tasks/threads block forever, eventhough they have a TIMEOUT of > 4 secs, sometimes even less. I think you are seeing a bug in the timeout code which I happened to fix last week. Please try the patch appended below. I'll probably also release a new Fiasco … [View More]

2 1

Am i missing something here ?
by kermit the frog 26 Apr '99

26 Apr '99

While "testing" some REALLY simple servers that I wrote I noticed something, maybe this is a bug or maybe Im plain dumb and im missing something (-; Heres the thing, whenever I start 2 or more task/threads that contain some sort of a 'pause' in the for l4_i386_ipc_receive(L4_NIL_ID ... it seems to be that all tasks/threads block forever, eventhough they have a TIMEOUT of 4 secs, sometimes even less. Example for 2 tasks: Initialization stuff . . for(;;){ printf("."); … [View More]

1 0

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

l4-hackers April 1999