[Oslib-devel] [Fwd: Re: OSLib, my os (SD-32 stormdos)]

[Luca A. <luc...@em...>]

Jury,
I sent an answer to you, but it bounced...


Others (mainly Paolo),
are you ok with the interface change proposed by Jury (adding a
killer_param parameter to ll_context_create)?

			Luca
-----Forwarded Message-----

> From: Luca Abeni <luc...@em...>
> To: Jury Benesz <yb...@tu...>
> Subject: Re: OSLib, my os (SD-32 stormdos)
> Date: 22 Apr 2003 16:03:19 +0100
> 
> Hi Jury!!!
> 
> >   I'm glad to infrom you that my own OS based on OSLib and partially
> >   freedos-32 is going to work! ;)
> Cool!!!
>  
> >   I use a table of 'process entries', i.e. an array of structures
> >   describing a process: base, size, stack, stack_size, CONTEXT, flags. The
> >   flags inform whether a process is active, whether this entry is
> >   occupied/valid and a kind of process: child/thread or
> >   parent/program. So inside my system I use PROCESS_IDs which
> >   reference into that table of processes, i.e. not CONTEXTs.
> Ok... This is a fairly standard solution: shark is also using something
> similar.
> 
> >   As I use
> >   context_create/delete I use a default killer procedure which uses my
> >   own delete_process function but (!) the killer function gots no
> >   parameters (opposite to the thread body) so I have to find my
> >   PROCESS_ID by looking through the table of processes for
> >   entry[i].ctx==ll_context_from().
> Generally, a kernel has some variable storing the ID (in your case, an
> integer indicating the PROCESS_ID) of the executing thread/task. This is
> used by the scheduler (or by some other kernel subsystem) to perform
> accounting, and is set by the scheduler when a context switch happens.
> The "standard solution" to your problem would be to use this variable
> (since the killer executes in the context of the thread that is
> terminating...).
> 
> > The only thing I ask to add into OSLib
> >   is a function ll_context_create() with a support for killer routine
> >   with a parameter, so I can pass a process's ID as a parameter and
> >   simply do:
> Ok, if you really want it (i.e., if you cannnot or don't want to use the
> "current task" variable), I have no objection to such modification...
> The only problem is that I have not much time to implement it right now
> (I am busy with my job, and I'll be out of town for about 3 or 4 days in
> the next week). Hence, I could do it only after the 1st of may. In the
> meanwhile, if you want to provide a patch (it should not be that
> difficult: I think that pushing the parameter on the task stack when
> build it in ll_context_create would be enough), you are welcome.
> 
> 				Luca
> -- 
> _____________________________________________________________________________
> Copy this in your signature, if you think it is important:
>                                N O    W A R ! ! !
-- 
_____________________________________________________________________________
Copy this in your signature, if you think it is important:
                               N O    W A R ! ! !



--
Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f

Sponsor:
Vuoi un notebook potente, funzionale ideale per il lavoro?
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=763&d=22-4