Title: ÈýÊ®¶àÄêµÄÆ·ÅÆ ÖÇ»ÛÓë¿Æ¼¼Ïà½áºÏ
±¾EmailÊÇÉÆÒâµÄÉÌÒµÓʼþ
ÈçÓÐðÃÁÇëɾ³ý
¡¡
¡¡
ÈýÊ®¶àÄêµÄÆ·ÅÆ
ÖÇ»ÛÓë¿Æ¼¼Ïà½áºÏ
¸ßÔÊý¿ØÑĮ̀ÓÐÏÞ¹«Ë¾
¾ßÓÐÈýÊ®¶àÄêÑо¿
¡¢Éú²úÀúÊ·µÄ¸ßÔÊý¿ØÊÇרÃÅ´ÓÊÂÊý¿Øϵͳ¡¢Êý¿Ø»ú´²µÄÑз¢¡¢Éú²úºÍÈ«·½Î»¼¼Ê
Neal H Walfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But, since the user, in this case, is in the same task, we can do some
> black magic. Do you think that that is reasonable?
No, it seems like a bad way to spend effort right now. It would
seriously warp the structure of the thing, and we don't havy
> I think that that optimization could be easily integrated into
> pager_memcpy.
There was once a theory that memcpy would use vm_copy for large
page-aligned copies. There is in fact code for this in libc, but I think
it doesn't get used because it's only the generic code and there are
optimized
> > In the scenario case, we do a completely unnecessary read! That is
> > not demand paging; that is a waste.
>
> Oh, you're talking about the case where we are writing complete pages?
> Yes, that's a defect of any scheme like this. In principle, using the
> vm_copy interface is the only thing
> Note that you have provided a *clean* page back to the kernel (even if
> it was dirty when you got it from the kernel); as a consequence, the
> kernel might delete the page now, losing any changes that have been
> made So you must mark it precious even if you didn't modify it. In
> otherwords,
Neal H Walfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In the scenario case, we do a completely unnecessary read! That is
> not demand paging; that is a waste.
Oh, you're talking about the case where we are writing complete pages?
Yes, that's a defect of any scheme like this. In principle, using the
vm
> In principle, we need to do this already! The glaringest security
> issue with the Hurd right now is the assumption that all users will
> just take their pagers and hand them to the kernel with vm_map. But
> they might play as "kernels" themselves. To deal with this, the
> pagers need to be ab
Neal H Walfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hmm. True. But then only if the dirty bit was set in the
> memory_object_data_return message.
Oh right, somehow I forgot that the kernel handed you the dirty bit.
> > Ideally, if you need to write to the page, you do it the same way
> > libdiskfs
Title: Happych °øµ¿±¸¸Å
º» ¸ÞÀÏÀº ¹ß½ÅÀü¿ë Client·Î ¹ß¼ÛµÈ ¸ÞÀÏ·Î ¼ö½Å°ÅºÎ´Â ¼¹ö¿¡¼ ÀÚµ¿À¸·Î ºÐ·ùµÇ¾î ¼ö½Å°ÅºÎ
󸮰¡ µË´Ï´Ù.ÄÄÇ»ÅÍ°¡ ÀÚµ¿¼ö½ÅÇÏ´Â ¸ÞÀϷμ ¼ö½Å°ÅºÎ½Ã ÇÏ´ÜÀÇ ¼ö½Å°ÅºÎ ¹öÆ°À» Ŭ¸¯ÇϽðųª º¸³»½Ã´Â
¸ÞÀÏÀÇ Á¦¸ñ¿¡ [¼ö½Å°ÅºÎ]¶ó´Â ±Û±Í°¡ ¸»¸Ó¸®¿¡ ÀÖ¾î¾ß ¸¸ÀÌ ¼ö½Å°ÅºÎ µî·ÏÀÌ Ã³¸®
Neal H Walfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What is the correct way to give the management of the page back to
> the kernel?
memory_object_data_supply.
> Perhaps, we could use the memory_object_data_supply
> message (and if we modified it, we could supply it as precious).
> _The Mach 3 Kern
If a memory manager issues a memory_object_lock_request to gain
read/write access to a set of pages (i.e. evoking all of the kernel's
access rights), the kernel will eventually return any modified pages
in the range using the memory_object_data_return message and end the
sequence with a memory_obj
> The interface seems to me to be intended to support partial writes (actual
> amount written returned in AMOUNT). Shouldn't it truncate?
If retrying with the remaining partial amount would be an error, than I
don't think it should. Returning a short write count usually indicates you
can write
On Mon, Mar 11, 2002 at 06:09:16PM -0500, Roland McGrath wrote:
> > Because in this case store_next_run is called, and store_next_run wraps
> > around, this will succeed.
>
> That should not happen. It should not be wrapping around at all for most
> stores. I suspect that what's needed is an en
Thanks for your help. I've submitted the gdb patches, and the hurd crash
server code is all checked in. As to core files, I think it's good and
done now. There's the remaining gdb hack to write the note segment for its
"gcore" command; I will whip that up before long, and it's not like anyone
h
On Wed, Mar 13, 2002 at 09:45:05AM +1100, Luke Cole wrote:
> Hello.
>
> Please excuse if this is an inappropriate forum for something like this,
> but I was wondering if anybody had seen this article/knew anything about it:
>
> http://www.idg.net/ic_829012_4394_1-3921.html
>
> (RMS saying that
Title: CD ŸÀÌƲ Á¦ÀÛ,ȸ»çÈ«º¸ CD Á¦ÀÛ,Á¹¾÷¾Ù¹ü CD ROM Á¦ÀÛ,CD COPY,DVD,VCD,SHAPE CD-µðÁöÅРŬ·Ð WWW.CLON.CO.KR
ÀúÈñ µðÁöÅРŬ·Ð ¿¡¼´Â ±â¾÷,°ü°ø¼,´Üü,Çб³µî 170 ¿©°³ ¾÷üÀÇ
´Ù³â°£ÀÇ Á¦ÀÛ °æÇèÀ¸·Î ´ë±â¾÷ ¹× Áß¼Ò±â¾÷ ȸ»ç È«º¸ ¹× ÇÁ¸®Á¨Å×À̼Ç,¼ÒÇÁÆ®¿þ¾î
Óâàæàåìûå äàìû è ãîñïîäà!
29-30 ìàðòà 2002 ã. â Ðåíåññàíñ Ïåíòà Âåíà Îòåëü (Âåíà, Àâñòðèÿ) ñîñòîèòñÿ
5-ÿ Ñïåöèàëèçèðîâàííàÿ Ìåæäóíàðîäíàÿ Êîíôåðåíöèÿ ïî
èíôîðìàöèîííûì òåõíîëîãèÿì â áèçíåñå. Òåìà Êîíôåðåíöèè "Íîâàÿ ýêîíîìèêà
Ðîññèè: ïåðñïåêòèâû äëÿ ðåàëüíîãî áèçíåñà". Ê íàñòîÿùåìó ìîìåíòó ó÷àñòèå
Title: Untitled Document
À̹ø
ÈÀÌÆ®µ¥À̳¯ Á¡¼öÇѹø µû½Ã°Ô
µµ¿Íµå¸®°Ú½À´Ï´Ù.
Title: Designsil - Ad mail
¿Â. ¶ó . ÀÎ . À¸ .
·Î . Æî . Ä¡ . ´Â . ÀÎ . ÅÍ . ³Ý . µð . ÀÚ . ÀÎ . ¼¼ . »ó
µðÀÚÀνǿ¡ ¿À¼Å¼ °³º° µðÀÚÀνÇÀ» ½ÅûÇϽʽÿÀ.
ȸ»çÀÇ ¸ðµç ¾÷¹«¸¦ ¼öÇàÇØ µå¸®´Â ¿Â¶óÀÎ µðÀÚÀνÇÀ» Áï½Ã Á¦°øÇØ µå¸³´Ï´Ù.
CI½Éº¼¸íÇÔ È«º¸¹°Á¦Ç°µðÀÚÀÎÀ¥µ
Sexually Deprived ?
Then this will help YOU !!
Call this address today
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please put BLINFO in the subject line
Thank you
Ps..If in the past few days you have all ready been sent this mail, please accept my apology..
My mailing program went 'up the wall'. This is such a GOO
Title: wowEshop
[»óÇ°Á¤º¸] º¸³»´ÂÀÌ wowEshop
Title: ±z¦n
±z¦n¡I
§Ú¬O¡uºô¸ô¤W¯Z5858±M®×¡vªA°È±Mûª÷¥ý¥Í¡A©êºp¯Ô»~±z´X¤ÀÄÁªº®É¶¡¡C¥Ø«e±oª¾±z¦b´M§ä¤u§@¾÷·|¤¤¡A¨Ó«H¥Dn¬O¦³¤@Ó¡yºô¸ô¤W¯Z¡zªº°T®§n§i¶D±z¡A´£¨Ñ±z°µ°Ñ¦Ò¡I
©Ò¿×ºô¸ô¤W¯Z¡A´N¬O³z¹L¤@®M±MÄݧ@·~¥¥x¨t²Î-HO
ADSL¡A¦b®a¤W¯Z¡A¦b¤£¼vÅT²{¦³¤u§@ªº±¡ªp¤U¡A®É¶¡¼u©Ê¡B·NÄ@
22 matches
Mail list logo
