IPC Between User Processes - Minix

This is a discussion on IPC Between User Processes - Minix ; Are "pipes" the only IPC mechanism possible for "normal" (i.e., non-server) Minix3 processes? The only "message" primitive allowed (by default) is 'sendrec'() which really can't be used for such purposes. How do user processes communicate between themselves? Thanks for your ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: IPC Between User Processes

  1. IPC Between User Processes

    Are "pipes" the only IPC mechanism possible for "normal" (i.e.,
    non-server) Minix3 processes?

    The only "message" primitive allowed (by default) is 'sendrec'() which
    really can't be used for such purposes.

    How do user processes communicate between themselves?

    Thanks for your ideas and comments!
    --
    Prof Kenneth H Jacker khj@cs.appstate.edu
    Computer Science Dept www.cs.appstate.edu/~khj
    Appalachian State Univ
    Boone, NC 28608 USA

  2. Re: IPC Between User Processes

    On Mar 4, 4:08 pm, Kenneth Jacker wrote:
    > Are "pipes" the only IPC mechanism possible for "normal" (i.e.,
    > non-server) Minix3 processes?
    >
    > The only "message" primitive allowed (by default) is 'sendrec'() which
    > really can't be used for such purposes.
    >

    One can use a file (probably you knew about that).
    As implemented, there is no direct IPC possible among user processes.
    I was able to get rid of sendrec in Minix-1.5 but not after that. So,
    I also
    would be interested in the answer to your query.

    -ishwar




  3. Re: IPC Between User Processes

    In article <87abytdm9u.fsf@be.cs.appstate.edu>,
    Kenneth Jacker wrote:
    >Are "pipes" the only IPC mechanism possible for "normal" (i.e.,
    >non-server) Minix3 processes?
    >
    >The only "message" primitive allowed (by default) is 'sendrec'() which
    >really can't be used for such purposes.
    >
    >How do user processes communicate between themselves?


    The interface presented to application programs is POSIX. IMHO, the Minix
    message passing primitives are too low level to be used for general purpose
    IPC in applications.


    --
    That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
    could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
    by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
    -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency

  4. Re: IPC Between User Processes

    I'm slightly hijacking this topic, but is there a pthreads library
    available in minix 3? Can't find much information about it so far.

    wacco

    On Mar 9, 9:44 am, phi...@ue.aioy.eu (Philip Homburg) wrote:
    > In article <87abytdm9u....@be.cs.appstate.edu>,
    > Kenneth Jacker wrote:
    >
    > >Are "pipes" the only IPC mechanism possible for "normal" (i.e.,
    > >non-server) Minix3 processes?

    >
    > >The only "message" primitive allowed (by default) is 'sendrec'() which
    > >really can't be used for such purposes.

    >
    > >How do user processes communicate between themselves?

    >
    > The interface presented to application programs is POSIX. IMHO, the Minix
    > message passing primitives are too low level to be used for general purpose
    > IPC in applications.
    >
    > --
    > That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
    > could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
    > by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
    > -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency




  5. Re: IPC Between User Processes


    wrote in message
    news:1173464730.422650.280250@30g2000cwc.googlegro ups.com...

    > I'm slightly hijacking this topic, but is there a pthreads library
    > available in minix 3? Can't find much information about it so far.


    Why didn't you just start a new thread and ask that so your question would
    have greater visibility? It seems like a valid topic for a separate thread
    to me.

    John



+ Reply to Thread