-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
/
question.txt
83 lines (59 loc) · 3.31 KB
/
question.txt
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Instructions
- replace any [...] with free text,
and
- replace the [?] with an X if you have completed that stage,
- replace the [?] with an * if you have attempted that stage, but you know
it doesn't work completely; document why you think it doesn't work, plus
what you would do to fix the problem, at the end of the marksheet.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Information
So that we can calibrate and improve the assignment in the future, give us
a rough idea how long (in hours) you spent on it *in total*:
effort : [ 200+ ] hours
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Citation
Clearly it might have an influence on your mark, but the use of third-party
resources is allowed *iff.* it
- hasn't been explicitly prohibited by the assignment description, *and*
- is correctly cited.
Let us know any third-party source code or resources you used (if any) so
it's clear what's your work and what isn't:
[ I used example codes in the lecture slide for my sem_wait and sem_post.
I checked tutorial code from https://www.codesdope.com/blog/article/making-a-queue-using-an-array-in-c/
to implement pipe
All codes except the ones from lab sessions are my work
document.txt has detailed list of my work ]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Marking
The following gives a stage-by-stage description of the assignment marking
scheme. Note this acts as an indicative guideline only, including weights
for each more obvious aspect (e.g., functional correctness); other aspects
outside this list can warrant an increase/decrease in marks, with examples
including hard to quantify features such as style, efficiency, robustness,
generality, or realism of a solution. Put another way, identifying then
reasoning about these latter aspects forms part of the assessment, so they
are not (necessarily) detailed explicitly.
Stage 1 : a baseline kernel
[X] - pre-emptive multi-tasking ( 30%)
[X] - priority-based scheduler ( 10%)
Stage 2 : closed generalisations and enhancements
[X] - fork, exec, and exit system calls ( 15%)
[X] - Inter-Process Communication (IPC) ( 15%)
Stage 3 : open generalisations and enhancements ( 30%)
[?] - MMU-based protection and virtualisation
*OR*
[*] - LCD screen and PS/2 device drivers and GUI
*OR*
[?] - file system based on simplified, emulated disk
*OR*
[?] - kernel port to real, physical hardware
------
(100%)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Documentation
Any other documentation, notes or comments that you think are important or
might be easy to overlook (e.g., a subtle issue or technique in associated
source code) should go here:
[ Please read document.txt ]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------