[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: io_close proposal

From: Marcus Brinkmann
Subject: Re: io_close proposal
Date: Sun, 19 May 2002 23:33:14 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.3.28i

On Sun, May 19, 2002 at 01:31:54PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Marcus Brinkmann <address@hidden> writes:
> > Well, the real problem, and the explanation why my idea won't work is this:
> > 
> > If the server sees 1 extant send right, he doesn't know if this is the
> > callers extant send right, or if the number of extant send rights has been
> > 2 and the caller did:
> > 
> > io_close_request(port)
> > mach_port_deallocate(mach_task_self(), port);
> Here, the user has not followed the protocol.  He has the port
> *twice*, and if he wants close actions to work properly, he must call
> io_close_request on *each*.  

Sorry, I was not being clear.  I was arguing here against the idea of
sending the io_close _without sending the port right along with the
message_, which is a different idea from the one I originally proposed.

The point is that the current interruptible RPC stubs expect that the caller
keeps a send right for each send right moved in the message.  I was trying
to think about a way to make io_close work without moving the send right of
the caller to the server.

I think I have showed that such an approach is impossible to work reliably.

I should have given the io_close_request above a different name to
distinguish it from the original proposal.


`Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debian address@hidden
Marcus Brinkmann              GNU    address@hidden

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]