D. Consider the following savage-cook monitor version. 1. Consider the first version of the implementation in which we had only one signal in each method Given service methods: getServing(), putServings(), with local variables size = M and #servings = 0, and queues NFood and Food. TakeServingO: while (#servings-0){ signal(NoFood); wait(Food); #Servings-.. PutServing0: IR#servings!-0) wait(NoFood); #servings-M signal(Food); Give the execution sequence that shows deadlock and delay (depending on the fact that the savage's execution code is or is not a while(true) loop). 2. Do we need to have if (#servings !=0) wait(NoFood) in the Cook pseudo- code? anyway, wait (NoFood) only is enough. What will be the outcome of the above change? (what condition(s) of the Critical Section Problem might be violated?) Give the execution sequence that will show it. Or, since if a savage finds the pot empty it will signal the Cook 3. The savage waits if there is noFood, the cook waits for Food a. Can we, instead of two condition variables, use only one? (let's say: potStatus). Discuss b. Is the assumption: If we have only one condition variable PotStatus, savage and cook cannot block at the same time on the condition variable correct