On Sat, Jun 15, 2002 at 03:56:18PM -0400, Roland McGrath wrote: > > Actually, fs_notify.defs is using routines, not simpleroutines, and we have > > special hacks in libdiskfs and console to get simpleroutines... delivering > > them synchronously would work as well, although it would not be so good if > > you have multiple clients. > > I think that might just have been an oversight, and it seems entirely > reasonable for filesystems to refuse to do anything synchronous (let the > message queuing do it).
If Thomas agrees, I will change it to simpleroutines, because I agree. > > BTW, if the port queue is full, the call blocks in the server, even if it is > > a simple routine, because the MiG stubs don't have a timeout (or notify > > port). I just tried it: Using ports_manage...one_thread, the server will > > block during operation, and the effect is that we have almost synchronizity > > where the server is always a couple RPCs ahead (as many as the queue can > > hold). In the case of several clients, this would block other clients, too. > > Ack. It should use timeout=0 and let the user lose if he didn't drain his > port queue fast enough. I agree here, too. Currently, it is quite convenient for me, though :) The problem is that you really would like to know about it when this happens. OTOH, the user of such a console probably would notice and refresh the display. Thanks, Marcus -- `Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debian http://www.debian.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] Marcus Brinkmann GNU http://www.gnu.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.marcus-brinkmann.de _______________________________________________ Bug-hurd mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
