Quoting Samuel Thibault (2013-07-29 13:36:33)
> Justus Winter, le Fri 26 Jul 2013 13:24:49 +0200, a écrit :
> > > > I'm not sure about how important it is not to freeze anyone of them,
> > > > but at least procfs must not be stopped b/c killall5 wants to
> > > > iterate over /proc.
> > >
> >
Justus Winter, le Fri 26 Jul 2013 13:24:49 +0200, a écrit :
> > > I'm not sure about how important it is not to freeze anyone of them,
> > > but at least procfs must not be stopped b/c killall5 wants to
> > > iterate over /proc.
> >
> > And /proc might not even be started yet, so exec need t
Quoting Samuel Thibault (2013-07-24 15:15:52)
> Justus Winter, le Wed 24 Jul 2013 08:30:52 +0200, a écrit :
> > the processes below 100 that are
> > not marked as essential by Guillems patch are:
> >
> > exec,
>
> That one should be easy.
Yes, /hurd/init can mark it as essential.
> > /sbi
Justus Winter, le Wed 24 Jul 2013 08:30:52 +0200, a écrit :
> the processes below 100 that are
> not marked as essential by Guillems patch are:
>
> exec,
That one should be easy.
> /sbin/init, term, pflocal, mach-defpager, null, procfs,
> proxy-defpager, tmpfs, storeio
Most of which are
Hi,
[PATCH 1/7] proc: add proc_mark_essential server code
[PATCH 2/7] hurd: add proc_mark_essential
[PATCH 3/7] init: Mark auth, proc and fs servers as essential
This is a refreshed but otherwise unmodified version of Guillems patch
series presented here:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-hur
> That's not what he said. He said there is a lot of information
> propagated from init to proc, and thus the separation is questionable.
Are you talking about bootstrap, or what?
Roland McGrath, le Mon 15 Jul 2013 09:44:52 -0700, a écrit :
> They are separate because they do different things. This doesn't seem like
> it should need a lot of justification to Hurd hackers. If you want to roll
> things together just because you always run them both,
That's not what he said.
They are separate because they do different things. This doesn't seem like
it should need a lot of justification to Hurd hackers. If you want to roll
things together just because you always run them both, maybe you should be
hacking on a monolithic kernel instead.
Justus Winter, le Tue 25 Jun 2013 17:47:49 +0200, a écrit :
> This special interface they both use and the fact that init does lot's
> of process related things might be an indication that the seperation
> does more harm than good. It seems to make the code more complex, and
> fixing the issue of k
Hi,
I'd like to get some input. For context, please read Guillems message
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-hurd/2006-02/msg00081.html and
Marcus critique
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-hurd/2006-02/msg00082.html
Looking at his patch and having seen some mach message passing code in
th
10 matches
Mail list logo
