Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!hp4nl!star.cs.vu.nl!ast
From: ast@cs.vu.nl (Andy Tanenbaum)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: Re: Recap on past 2 weeks
Message-ID: <7227@star.cs.vu.nl>
Date: 3 Aug 90 11:43:10 GMT
References: <7217@star.cs.vu.nl> <641@philica.ica.philips.nl>
Sender: news@cs.vu.nl
Organization: Fac. Wiskunde & Informatica, VU, Amsterdam
Lines: 16

In article <641@philica.ica.philips.nl> adrie@beitel.ica.philips.nl (Adrie Koolen) writes:
>When a task issues a SUSPEND reply, it specifies the number of the user
>process to be suspended. When reading/writing blocks, the FS specifies
>itself as the process for wich I/O must be done! This brings me to the
>standard problem: the FS issues requests to the (block) tasks for user
>processes AND for the FS self.

You're right.  I spoke too fast.  One could have FS tell the driver whether
the request was on behalf of a user or on behalf of itself, and have the
driver react immediately to FS's own requests, but this seems to add a
lot of complexity to the drivers.

I guess the conclusion is that this project gets pushed from the back burner
off the rear end of the stove.

Andy Tanenbaum (ast@cs.vu.nl).