Re: proxy memory objects

On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 09:49:29PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> I don't think this makes sense.  What task?

Yeah, I know that this was bogus, too.  But we have to send it somewhere.
Maybe it should be mach_host_self to specify the kernel which creates and
holds the proxy memory object.

> I think we should send it to the memory object, that's the only thing
> that makes sense.

I agree that this is ok, if you want that additional level of indirection.

> *THEN* the memory object should have a special hack call to the
> kernel--to the memory object control port--that creates the actual
> proxy object.

This was the first thought I had when I realized that the memobj RPC
doesn't go the kernel.  But the memory object control port doesn't exist
before the first mapping is established.  It is for controlling a memory
object that is actually used by the kernel.  The memory objct we have
created is probably not used until we gave out the proxy object.
Or did I misunderstood that?

Thanks,
Marcus

-- 
`Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' GNU      http://www.gnu.org    [email protected]
Marcus Brinkmann              The Hurd http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/
[email protected]
http://www.marcus-brinkmann.de/