At Sat, 12 May 2007 21:01:02 +0200, Thomas Schwinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yes, but that would require keeping some state in the server, which I > wanted to avoid, because...
As you have PORT and presumably an associated peropen, I am not convinced by your argument. > > > If `port' becomes dead, `io_perm' should be deallocated as well, but how? > > > > Why does the server need to retain access to IO_PERM? Once the client > > has the cap, can't the server can deallocate its copy. > > ..., because there is absolutely no need for the server to keep access to > IO_PERM: as I described in another email of mine, I explicitly want to > _move_ the capability away from the server to the requestee. Right. _______________________________________________ Bug-hurd mailing list Bug-hurd@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
