[coyotos-dev] Sleep for interval

[Sam Mason]

On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 11:43:13AM -0700, Charles Landau wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 22, 2007 at 04:40:49PM -0400, Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote:
> >In contrast to all other kernel capabilities, which are always
> >receiving, the definition of the sleep object is that it will remain in
> >a non-receiving state until the invoker's specified interval has run
> >out. This has three consequences:
> >
> >   1. Sleep always happens to the invoker. Process A cannot place process
> >      B onto a kernel sleep queue.
> 
> So the sleep object cannot be accurately proxied, which is 
> unfortunate. If you later did decide to implement this outside the 
> kernel, you could not do so compatibly.

I'm confused, why don't you just give the process you're creating a
capability to a proxied, as opposed to the kernel's, sleep object?

The only way the child would know is if they did a discrim on the
capability and I'm not sure what the plans are to make the kernel
respond to a sleep object.


  Sam