-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hello, what happens if IPC uses an invalid thread-id? Is the message although forwarded to the subsystem's chief? Ciao, Chris -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Christian Stueble............stueble@ls6.cs.uni-dortmund.de PubKey[BF7104F5].......fp=8678C5D3CAD9CD8C F1DDB8EC202F116A To be or not to be is true... (apocrypha of George Boole) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use MessageID: J7gRC3CpAZgh3vXKJpAlEFSfZz45w/ET iQCVAwUBOL5y5fyJjJy/cQT1AQFaywQAhBB4KcN8eHZXMrAPgrvJyQhbEMoRYc6j Wmpt5tBK3Tu1DmcNtTqlcGChzFIDrUiE6+Iw8eN74Bx2Dn+Cn+ohcUmSeaxEjkNl 2F8rTA/13dm/4wojmRz87uAvHWuFx+PycsXm7P3BRRqb+9aC+O1ftau6bNSqsmXC 8A/QvdUxDQg= =PFys -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
"CS" == Christian Stueble <stueble@amaunet.cs.uni-dortmund.de> writes:
CS> what happens if IPC uses an invalid thread-id? Is the message although CS> forwarded to the subsystem's chief? On MIPS the IPC will fail with "invalid destination". According to my reading of the manual, that is the expected behaviour. Delivery to a chief doesn't make sense, as the "nearest chief" is undefined for a non-existing thread. Gernot -- Gernot Heiser ,--_|\ School of Computer Sci. & Engin. Phone: +61 2 9385 5156 / \ The University of NSW Fax: +61 2 9385 5533 \_,--._* Sydney, Australia 2052 E-mail: gernot@unsw.edu.au v http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~gernot PGP fingerprint: 94 1E B8 28 25 FD 7C 94 20 10 92 E5 0B FF 39 8F
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Am Fre, 03 Mär 2000 schrieben Sie:
"CS" == Christian Stueble <stueble@amaunet.cs.uni-dortmund.de> writes:
CS> what happens if IPC uses an invalid thread-id? Is the message although CS> forwarded to the subsystem's chief?
On MIPS the IPC will fail with "invalid destination". According to my reading of the manual, that is the expected behaviour. Delivery to a chief doesn't make sense, as the "nearest chief" is undefined for a non-existing thread. Yes, "nearest chief" of the receiver doesn't make sense, but "nearest chief" of the sender does. Does Fiasco behave the same?
The advantage would be that a chief can provide only locally valid thread-ids to its clan and translate them internally into valid thread-ids. To emulate this behaviour currently I have to create a dummy task to prevent invalid thread-ids. Chris -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Christian Stueble............stueble@ls6.cs.uni-dortmund.de PubKey[BF7104F5].......fp=8678C5D3CAD9CD8C F1DDB8EC202F116A To be or not to be is true... (apocrypha of George Boole) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use MessageID: vZbij/yMwxhwHaw1rv5qvQ1hCncfQz5j iQCVAwUAOL/pNPyJjJy/cQT1AQHMiQP/e+Xs41jBkNggC7Gg+1AqGtbT/m4uBdCz saH+FBVe5xlHNGOVS/cLjjRwnxrnnPxeZ2lIVSi4XsS5ZAGuXLjU31euECv27lPF xH5TptCPD6LVswAdSQGiiIzsSKrSiC93wzxG8CgHj3sHefdjMatA+W8NZJP5Q2uk 9SZjiOQZRc4= =/BJR -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
"CS" == Christian Stueble <stueble@amaunet.cs.uni-dortmund.de> writes:
On MIPS the IPC will fail with "invalid destination". According to my reading of the manual, that is the expected behaviour. Delivery to a chief doesn't make sense, as the "nearest chief" is undefined for a non-existing thread.
CS> Yes, "nearest chief" of the receiver doesn't make sense, but "nearest chief" CS> of the sender does. No. The definition of "nearest chief" involves the relative locations of both, sender and receiver in the task hierarchy. The "nearest chief" may be a member of the sender's clan. See the manual for id_nearest(). Gernot -- Gernot Heiser ,--_|\ School of Computer Sci. & Engin. Phone: +61 2 9385 5156 / \ The University of NSW Fax: +61 2 9385 5533 \_,--._* Sydney, Australia 2052 E-mail: gernot@unsw.edu.au v http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~gernot PGP fingerprint: 94 1E B8 28 25 FD 7C 94 20 10 92 E5 0B FF 39 8F
participants (2)
-
Christian Stueble -
Gernot Heiser