Re: Questions about copy-on-write

[Sam Mason]

Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
>Depends on how much you want to go into detail with
>that, and how much work you actually want to put into it, now, and
>over time.  Usually we just tell people to charge ahead with an idea,
>and let them find their own interests and way to get stuff done.

OK, I'm not sure what my longer term interests are going to be.
I'll try and keep extending the notes I've made and see if they
start to resemble anything coherent.

>I was thinking about something like the redirector, which is set with
>l4_space_control, but obviously is not a property of the address
>space, per se, but of the threads running in that space (ie, what you
>would normally call the task).

I guess I'll find out. . .

>The state of a thread is part of the thread object, which is a
>distinct object in L4 (in fact, one of the few you can actually name
>and specify).  In particular, look for TCB (in the kernel) and UTCB
>(in user land).

OK, I was assuming that threads are "inside" an address space -
rather than associated with one as they appear to be.  Seems to be
quite a lot more state than I was expecting, but I'll take it in
confidence that it's all needed.

>There is only little state in the kernel, but some is obviously there.
>I don't have a list, though.

I didn't expect you to! :)

>But this is really unrelated to the notion of a process.  Don't get
>hooked up on this task vs process thing, there is not much use in
>putting too fine a point on it.

I know, it was just an attempt to reduce some miscomunication.

Thanks,
  Sam