Kevin Elphinstone wrote:
Arrgghhh, here we go again.... I don't have enough time in my life for yet another scheduling debate, so I'll summarize my view in the hope
Probably the second classic debate after Emacs vs vi !
So rather than argue over details of how lazy-scheduling "should" or
I am just trying to understand what's there in the gulf between specifications and implementations of L4 scheduling, an area which look subtly underspecified and/or mis-implemented. The more debate and POV we get on it, the better.
And no matter which model you require (except for maybe the first), your likely to have to audit the code to confirm your expected behaviour if your relying on it.
My specific problem WRT scheduling is that I want to be able to rely on behaviour as "in the spec", and not worry about details and optimisations in the various implementations, but probably I am daydreaming...:-) Sergio -- -- http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~sruocco/ ERTOS Researcher Lecturer National ICT Australia Ltd. University of New South Wales This email and any attachments are confidential. They may contain legally privileged information or copyright material. You should not read, copy, use or disclose them without authorisation. If you are not an intended recipient, please contact us at once by return email and then delete both messages. We do not accept liability in connection with computer virus, data corruption, delay, interruption, unauthorised access or unauthorised amendment. This notice should not be removed.