CVS difference for ai12s/ai12-0281-1.txt

Differences between 1.1 and version 1.2
Log of other versions for file ai12s/ai12-0281-1.txt

--- ai12s/ai12-0281-1.txt	2018/06/05 23:43:17	1.1
+++ ai12s/ai12-0281-1.txt	2018/06/12 05:28:47	1.2
@@ -155,3 +155,76 @@
 [This is version /01 of this AI - Editor.]
 
 ****************************************************************
+
+From: Jeff Cousins
+Sent: Monday, June 11, 2018  8:30 AM
+
+A few comments:
+
+!summary
+
+{The} CPU aspect
+
+!wording
+
+“Modify D.16 (10/3)
+
+The CPU aspect shall not be specified on [a] task { or protected }interface type{s}.”
+
+“Modify K.1 (15/3)
+
+CPU   Processor on which a given task {, or calling task for a protected type} 
+should run. See D.16.”
+
+Should these say “for actions of a protected object”?
+
+
+I was wondering whether this AI should allow for Partition_Id rather than just
+CPU, so as to alow for (entry-less) protected objects in a shared passive 
+partition??
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Tucker Taft
+Sent: Monday, June 11, 2018  9:43 AM
+
+> I was wondering whether this AI should allow for Partition_Id rather than 
+> just CPU, so as to alow for (entry-less) protected objects in a shared 
+> passive partition??
+
+I am not sure what this would accomplish.  If it is a shared passive 
+partition, presumably you already have plenty of control about which active
+partitions can see which passive partitions.  Adding protected object 
+restrictions into the mix would just seem to add undue complexity, without
+commensurate benefits (IMHO).
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Randy Brukardt
+Sent: Monday, June 11, 2018  9:43 PM
+
+> Modify D.16 (10/3)
+> 
+> The CPU aspect shall not be specified on [a] task { or protected }interface
+> type{s}.”
+> 
+> “Modify K.1 (15/3)
+> 
+> CPU   Processor on which a given task {, or calling task for a protected type}
+> should run. See D.16.”
+>
+> Should these say “for actions of a protected object”?
+
+
+Huh? The first paragraph is a Legality Rule, it has to apply to something 
+static like a type, not an action. Did you mean to reference some other text?
+
+I sort of understand the second, if your point was that one doesn't call a 
+protected type, but rather a protected operation. Maybe it would be better 
+to say:
+
+CPU   Processor on which a given task {or calling task for a protected 
+      operation of a protected type }should run. See D.16.
+
+****************************************************************
+

Questions? Ask the ACAA Technical Agent