Re: Reliability of RPC services

[Bas Wijnen]

On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 09:26:50PM -0400, Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote:
> On Sat, 2006-04-22 at 19:55 +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > Here is, in an informal manner, one of the invariants I mean: When a
> > process is in a call, and waiting on a reply (send-once) capability,
> > from a global system perspective one can identify a process "on which"
> > the caller is waiting: Namely the process holding the reply
> > capability. 
> 
> But in a scheduler activation design no process is ever waiting in this
> fashion. How should this be specified in a context of scheduler
> activations?

I think Marcus was talking about a single-copy reply-capability here.  So
there's only one process holding it.

Even if technically the process isn't "waiting" for the reply, in practice it
will in fact be waiting in the sense that it cannot continue with something
until it received a reply.  This doesn't mean it doesn't do other things, but
it's waiting nonetheless.

Thanks,
Bas

-- 
I encourage people to send encrypted e-mail (see http://www.gnupg.org).
If you have problems reading my e-mail, use a better reader.
Please send the central message of e-mails as plain text
   in the message body, not as HTML and definitely not as MS Word.
Please do not use the MS Word format for attachments either.
For more information, see http://129.125.47.90/e-mail.html

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature