On Mon, 2005-10-31 at 17:47 +0100, Espen Skoglund wrote: > Remember > that faults on endpoints (communication channels) are directed to the > compager of the faulting thread (as opposed to memory pager---I can > already hear Jonathan's teeth grinding at the word "pager" here), and > the compager need not be the same as the memory pager.
At the moment, the only grinding of my teeth is frustration with myself that I find it difficult to wrap my head around something that is perfectly clear to you. I would not expect a second pager to introduce any new architecture concerns that were already in the first. I do find it interesting that faults are now being segregated to different pager types. In a small way, this is similar to the type distinction between memory faults and execution faults in EROS -- except, of course, that in our case there are no endpoint communication faults that result from unmapping an endpoint. I should expand on the similarity, but I need to prepare for a meeting. shap _______________________________________________ L4-hurd mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/l4-hurd
