Re: Reliability of RPC services

[Marcus Brinkmann]

At Sat, 29 Apr 2006 21:26:50 -0400,
"Jonathan S. Shapiro" <address@hidden> 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?

Obviously in this design you do the obvious transition by replacing
"process" by "FCRB", where only the special class of FCRBs are
considered that are used in a call-like fashion.

I am very well aware that with the current semantics, there is no way
to express to the kernel that call-like semantics are desired.  That
is exactly the perceived problem.

Thanks,
Marcus