Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!watmath!att!dptg!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!leah!rpi!pawl!shadow From: shadow@pawl.rpi.edu (Deven T. Corzine) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech Subject: Re: Minix, Unix on the Amiga... Message-ID:Date: 9 Aug 89 04:33:33 GMT References: <8908082312.AA10140@jade.berkeley.edu> Sender: usenet@rpi.edu Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY Lines: 32 In-reply-to: 451061@UOTTAWA.BITNET's message of 8 Aug 89 23:05:39 GMT Randell Jesup writes in Message-ID: <7570@cbmvax.UUCP> Jesup> Not to say some resource tracking wouldn't be a bad Jesup> idea. However, in a multitasking, lightweight process machine Jesup> you have to be careful: many programs pass off resources Jesup> (permanently) to other processes (or to no one: public Jesup> structures, for example.) One can't merely add freeing of Jesup> resources on program exit to current programs; they'll break. On 8 Aug 89 23:05:39 GMT, 451061@UOTTAWA.BITNET (Valentin Pepelea) said: Valentin> How about a new flag for the memory allocation routines? If Valentin> resource tracking is to be implemented, MEMF_NOTRACK would Valentin> guarantee a memory block which would not be tracked, and Valentin> therefore not be deallocated when the program exits. While this could work, it requires code changes, and if you're talking code changes anyhow [you really need to at some point] then I think a preferable solution is a mechanism to _pass_ [as in, explicitly] resources to other task(s)... where it would continue to be tracked. Certainly would work for memory -- being able to pass arbitrary resources would be nice. Comments? Deven -- Deven T. Corzine Internet: deven@rpi.edu, shadow@pawl.rpi.edu Snail: 2214 12th Street, Troy, NY 12180 Phone: (518) 271-0750 Bitnet: deven@rpitsmts, userfxb6@rpitsmts UUCP: uunet!rpi!deven Simple things should be simple and complex things should be possible.