From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: lars@nocrew.org (Lars Brinkhoff)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 15:03:47 +0100
Subject: [TUHS] Another odd comment in V6
In-Reply-To: <CAH1jEzZsHqxEJpiMizkg6-cLDaaEhzjb9vzicrK0AJaRQT8muQ@mail.gmail.com>
 (Nick Downing's message of "Tue, 14 Feb 2017 22:27:40 +1100")
References: <378063CD-9B94-4AE3-B4BB-F41D2F6BFBF6@planet.nl>
 <CAH1jEzZsHqxEJpiMizkg6-cLDaaEhzjb9vzicrK0AJaRQT8muQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <868tp8kgxo.fsf@molnjunk.nocrew.org>

Nick Downing <downing.nick at gmail.com> writes:
> By contrast the MIT guy probably was working with a much smaller/more
> economical system that didn't maintain a kernel stack per process.

No.  PCLSRing is a feature of MIT' ITS operating system, and it does
have a separate stack for the kernel.

Here is a copy of Alan Bawdens paper about PCLSRing:
http://fare.tunes.org/tmp/emergent/pclsr.htm