Re: Reliability of RPC services

[Jonathan S. Shapiro]

On Sat, 2006-04-22 at 02:09 +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> At Sat, 22 Apr 2006 01:42:41 +0200,
> Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > In the upcoming L4 versions, and in Coyotos, destruction of the
> > receiver of a reply capability does not cause any action to be
> > triggered: Pending RPCs are not aborted.  This is because there is an
> > extra level of indirection between the reply capability and the thread
> > (first class receive buffer).
> 
> Clarification: FCRB here is meant as a synonymous for thread (one is
> an L4 term, the other a Coyotos term).  The indirection is of course
> the endpoint.

Marcus:

I believe that you may need to look at the FCRB specification more
carefully. An FCRB is bound directly to some receiving process (which is
equivalent to a thread). There is no additional endpoint. If we can
arrange for the FCRB sender capability to get invoked, that's all we
need.

I also want to add one addition to your earlier discussion:

  We want "reply capabilities" to trigger a death message.

  We do *not* want "entry capabilities" to trigger a message.

This means that the kernel must have some way to distinguish these two
types of sender capabilities.

shap