Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ndsuvax!ncoverby
From: ncoverby@ndsuvax.UUCP (Glen Overby)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: Re: identifying procs -- a proposal
Message-ID: <889@ndsuvax.UUCP>
Date: 14 May 88 20:15:20 GMT
References: <2509@louie.udel.EDU>
Reply-To: ncoverby@ndsuvax.UUCP (Glen Overby)
Organization: Silo Tech  Fargo, ND
Lines: 26

In article <2509@louie.udel.EDU> Leisner.Henr@xerox.com (Marty) writes:
>I really don't like the way the kernel is organized so tasks have proc numbers <
>0, servers have proc #s between 0 and low user and user level procs have
>proc_nrs above LOW_USER.  I'd much rather have fewer constraints be placed on
>numbering/ordering.

>Comments?

I have a similar mutation in my system.  I added a byte to determine the type
of process (USER, SERVER, DEVICE), which is like what you describe. I went
one step further; I have a "message privilege" word which specifies:
	* restrictions for recieving messages
	* privilege for sending messages

If a process has restrictions on recieving messages, only processes which
are privileged for sending messages can send to them.  If it has no restriciton,
anybody can send to it.

My hacks of this aren't very well tested yet, and are intermixed with my bootup
changes.  The main intention of them is to remove "LOW_USER" so that more
server processes can be added.  I also didn't like the negative process-id
number requirement for device tasks.  
-- 
Glen Overby
Bitnet:  ncoverby@ndsuvax
UUCP: {uunet, ihnp4!umn-cs}!ndsuvax!ncoverby