 | | Re: LNP Repost —Lou Sortman
|
| | | (...) I can see this. but it is starting to feel a little cramped on the ports, though. What functionality is port 0 reserved for? Actually, I was thinking of reserving a host address (such as 0x0) for IPC. I'd probably want to have more than 3 (...) (25 years ago, 16-Apr-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: LNP Repost —Jacob S. Barrett
|
| | | | I personally can't see needing more than about 7 tasks listening at one time anyway. Keep in mind that the resources on the lego are very very small. As far as reserving an address for IPC that would be fine. We could reserve 00000b for IPC and (...) (25 years ago, 17-Apr-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: LNP Repost —Lou Sortman
|
| | | | (...) For IPC, each (unshared) connection would take 2 ports (src/dest), so 4 bits at least lets us have 7 IPCs (assuming port 0 is reserved as it is in Berkeley sockets, 8 if it is not). I could certainly see having need of more than 3 IPC (...) (25 years ago, 17-Apr-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | RE: LNP Repost —Jacob S. Barrett
|
| | | | Those are some really good points, but I am still concerned about the complexity and overhead of implementing IPC on the lego. Since resources are so limited it might just be easier to use shared memory and semaphores to communicate. On the other (...) (25 years ago, 17-Apr-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: LNP Repost —Lou Sortman
|
| | | | (...) Indeed. I just figured that since the infrastructure would already be there for networking, it would be elegant to use the same for IPC. As you said, they don't actually need to be integrated. Then, there is your point about compiling in LNP (...) (25 years ago, 17-Apr-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| | | | |
