On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 05:07:52PM +0200, Richard Braun wrote: > On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 07:20:39PM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote: > > Thomas Schwinge, le Thu 09 May 2013 18:42:18 +0200, a écrit : > > > Then, to what extent are the proposed new RPCs just a specialized > > > variant of the generic "port info" RPC that we have been musing about, > > > <http://darnassus.sceen.net/~hurd-web/open_issues/translate_fd_or_port_to_file_name/>, > > > in particular the log from IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-03-07? To me it > > > would make sense to follow the latter route, so be able to store with > > > every generic port some bits of debugging/logging information > > > > Indeed. > > A potential problem with that approach is that, unlike the common case, > where the object associated to a port is targetted, the port itself is > the object here. The server managing it is then always the kernel, > which might interfere with message passing. A simple solution would be > to create raw system calls, but I'm not sure that's something we want > to do as it can be handy to emulate kernel calls. Another solution is > to restrict these RPCs to kernel objects only.
Actually, ports are *always* kernel objects, so using a system call would be appropriate IMHO. -- Richard Braun
