some XXX questions

This commit is contained in:
Robert Morris 2019-08-02 14:51:04 -04:00
parent e788af9b81
commit 3bee885ed7

View file

@ -232,12 +232,14 @@ alarmtest starting
will force you to handle the main challenge above. Here are some
hints how to pass test0:
<p><b>XXX alarm() needs to be defined somewhere.</b><br>
<ul>
<li>You'll need to modify the Makefile to cause <tt>alarmtest.c</tt>
to be compiled as an xv6 user program.
<li>The right declarations to put in <tt>user/user.h</tt> is:
<li>The right declaration to put in <tt>user/user.h</tt> is:
<pre>
int sigalarm(int ticks, void (*handler)());
</pre>
@ -249,7 +251,7 @@ to be compiled as an xv6 user program.
<li>Your <tt>sys_sigalarm()</tt> should store the alarm interval and
the pointer to the handler function in new fields in the <tt>proc</tt>
structure; see <tt>kernel/proc.h</tt>.
structure, defined in <tt>kernel/proc.h</tt>.
<li>You'll need to keep track of how many ticks have passed since the
last call (or are left until the next call) to a process's alarm
@ -277,12 +279,29 @@ use only one CPU, which you can do by running
make CPUS=1 qemu
</pre>
<li><b>XXX we need to somehow convey what it is they don't
need to do here, i.e. what part is to be left to
the next section.</b>
<li><b>XXX it's not clear how they can tell whether they
are passing test0(), and should proceed to the next section.
do they need to make sure at this point that they see multiple
alarm! printouts? or is it OK if they see one alarm! and
then a crash?</b>
</ul>
<h3>test1(): resume interrupted code</h3>
<p>Test0 doesn't tests whether the handler returns correctly to
interrupted instruction in test0. If you didn't get this right, it
<p><b>XXX it is surprising that test0() appears to work
perfectly, even though something is seriously wrong
with the way periodic() returns. we should recognize
that something odd is happening, maybe ask them to think
about it, and hint or say why they are not done even though
test0() works.</b>
<p>Test0 doesn't test whether the handler returns correctly to
the interrupted instruction. If you didn't get this right, it
is likely that test1 will fail (the program crashes or the program
goes into an infinite loop).