Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!apple!oliveb!tymix!doctor!jms
From: jms@doctor.Tymnet.COM (Joe Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Forbid() is not nice
Message-ID: <207@doctor.Tymnet.COM>
Date: 16 May 89 02:57:23 GMT
References: <17148@usc.edu> <24279@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> <18268@cup.portal.com> <17183@usc.edu> <21814@srcsip.UUCP> <5847@cs.Buffalo.EDU> <9160@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Reply-To: jms@doctor.Tymnet.COM (Joe Smith)
Followup-To: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Organization: McDonnell Douglas Field Service Co, San Jose CA
Lines: 16

In article <9160@polya.Stanford.EDU> gilham@polya.Stanford.EDU (Fred Gilham) writes:
>I used Forbid() and Permit() to allow me to start up a task where
>things weren't quite ready for it.  The parent simply did a Forbid()
>until it had finished setting things up.  This seemed like a good use
>of Forbid() to me.

Most of the time, a program using Forbid really doesn't need to stop all
scheduling.  That's like using a sledge hammer as a fly swatter.  We really
need a call that will tell the OS not to schedule one particular task, or
class of tasks.  I guess that's what others mean when they say we need
semaphores instead of Forbid/Permit.
-- 
Joe Smith (408)922-6220 | SMTP: JMS@F74.TYMNET.COM or jms@tymix.tymnet.com
McDonnell Douglas FSCO  | UUCP: ...!{ames,pyramid}!oliveb!tymix!tardis!jms
PO Box 49019, MS-D21    | PDP-10 support: My car's license plate is "POPJ P,"
San Jose, CA 95161-9019 | narrator.device: "I didn't say that, my Amiga did!"