On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 19:13 +0200, Constantine Kousoulos wrote: > typo corrections... @!#$&*!! > > Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > > I cannot see any reason why, once the system is up and running, even > > proc cannot simply syslog just like anything else, provided it does not > > hold internal locks as it does so (and this should be true for *every* > > call to syslog anyhow, in whatever program). > > > > I can see how internal locking is important. However, by using > another translator to call syslog instead of the original (eg > logrelay instead of proc) don't we bypass the problem? Syslog does > lock but from within logrelay, leaving proc free to continue doing > whatever was doing. All proc did was send an asyncronous message > to logrelay which i don't think it blocks proc's operation much.
We generally tend to dislike the use of asynchronous messages. They are great for Mach, but we would like to avoid the need to use them in general. Keeping things always as RPCs makes the system much more likely to be portable in the future to other kernels. Thomas
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Bug-hurd mailing list Bug-hurd@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
