Re: On PATH_MAX

[ness]

Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-11-10 at 16:02 +0100, ness wrote:
>
> > Bas Wijnen wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 01:29:21AM -0500, Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > > > > Why shouldn't the thread of execution and scheduling time be provided by 
> > > > > > > the caller, too?
> > >
> > >
> > > If the server can make guarantees about latency (which is useful anyway, to
> > > say the least), it should be able to tell how much schedule it needs.  Then it
> > > may demand that much from the client, and the client really transfers it, that
> > > is, it isn't gone when the client is destroyed.
> >
> > Sth. similar came to my mind:
> > The caller calls the server. It grants a thread of execution (the thread 
> > musn't be revokable). It also grants a minimum schedule (needed to 
> > recover).
>
>
> The client cannot grant a guarantee that the client does not have. The
> client's schedule is revocable, therefore any schedule that it might
> grant is revocable.

Why should a given schedule be revokable?

> Also, do you have any idea how complicated this would be to actually
> implement? Or to use?

Well, I not really. I imagine it extremely complicated. Currently this 
only a thought experiment for me.

> shap
--
-ness-