Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!ccu.umanitoba.ca!herald.usask.ca!alberta!ubc-cs!uw-beaver!mit-eddie!mintaka!mintaka.lcs.mit.edu!mib
From: mib@churchy.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell)
Newsgroups: comp.os.mach
Subject: Re: message passing & migration
Message-ID: <MIB.91Mar20120015@churchy.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
Date: 20 Mar 91 17:00:15 GMT
References: <2991@redstar.cs.qmw.ac.uk> <MIB.91Mar18050418@geech.ai.mit.edu>
	<2994@redstar.cs.qmw.ac.uk>
Sender: daemon@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu (Lucifer Maleficius)
Organization: Free Software Foundation, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 15
In-Reply-To: timk@cs.qmw.ac.uk's message of 19 Mar 91 11:26:13 GMT

In article <2994@redstar.cs.qmw.ac.uk> timk@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Tim Kindberg) writes:

   I know about the common case of transmitting sending port *send*
   rights.  I am interested in sending port *receive* rights.  A
   server can send port receive rights in a message in order, for
   example, to transfer its client(s) to another, less loaded server.

Hmm...I can't think of any case aside from task initialization where
the GNU multiserver design sends receive rights.  Some may arise;
there are places where I think I'll do it, but it's a kind of esoteric
occurrence.  I suspect that the rarity of sending receive rights would
justify a netmsgserver which was speedy, and sending a receive right
was potentially expensive.  

	-mib