Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Process abstraction #6

Open
rellermeyer opened this issue Mar 8, 2014 · 4 comments · May be fixed by #46
Open

Process abstraction #6

rellermeyer opened this issue Mar 8, 2014 · 4 comments · May be fixed by #46
Assignees
Labels
Milestone

Comments

@rellermeyer
Copy link
Owner

We need a proper process abstraction, i.e., some implementation of a PCB and some initial implementation of context-switching into a process.

@rellermeyer rellermeyer added this to the Processes milestone Mar 8, 2014
@ronso-rage
Copy link
Collaborator

I volunteer to work on this. Anybody else game?

@ronso-rage ronso-rage self-assigned this Mar 17, 2014
@ronso-rage ronso-rage reopened this Mar 17, 2014
@bigfuss
Copy link
Collaborator

bigfuss commented Mar 19, 2014

I will also work on this.

@rellermeyer rellermeyer assigned ronso-rage and unassigned ronso-rage Mar 19, 2014
@ronso-rage
Copy link
Collaborator

So, we've hit a wall with the process abstraction. Currently, we have a rudimentary pcb struct implemented. Assuming the major pieces of a process abstraction (e.g. the program code and data) exist in main memory, where does the input, specifically the address of the executable image come from? I'm assuming from the ELF group, perhaps?

@bigfuss bigfuss assigned bigfuss and unassigned ronso-rage Mar 21, 2014
@rellermeyer
Copy link
Owner Author

I would say the "process support" should allocate this memory as an initial address space. ELF parsing and loading should map the sections into this given memory region so that the dispatcher (i.e., the initial implementation of context-switching) can start a process of the program image. Does this make sense?

@NULLx76 NULLx76 linked a pull request Mar 11, 2020 that will close this issue
@NULLx76 NULLx76 linked a pull request Mar 11, 2020 that will close this issue
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants