[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: |
Thu, 16 May 2002 08:46:37 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.3.25i |
On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 11:30:52PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> The server for io_close would look something like:
>
> set up synchronization watch, lock against creation of new send rights
> see if we have the only outstanding send right now
> if we do:
> deallocate the received send right
****
> wait for synchronization
> return
On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 12:08:27AM -0400, Roland McGrath wrote:
> operation. If the RPC uses a move-send for the receiver right, then the
> only solution I see is special-case stubs on both sides so that the EINTR
> reply instead is a special format that returns the send right. close will
> have to put that new right (which probably has a different name) into the
> dtable so that the fd can be used in the signal handler if the close didn't
> complete.
>
These two don't match (and now I know what confused me about this).
If the server starts to deallocate the port (after the **** above),
I don't see an easy way to interrupt this, make a new send right
for this port and return it to the user so he can safely use it
in subsequent io operations.
But before jumping to conclusions again, I will ponder it silently.
Thanks,
Marcus
- io_close proposal, Marcus Brinkmann, 2002/05/15
- Re: io_close proposal, Roland McGrath, 2002/05/15
- Re: io_close proposal, Roland McGrath, 2002/05/15
- Re: io_close proposal, Marcus Brinkmann, 2002/05/16
- Re: io_close proposal, Thomas Bushnell, BSG, 2002/05/16
- Re: io_close proposal, Marcus Brinkmann, 2002/05/16
- Re: io_close proposal, Thomas Bushnell, BSG, 2002/05/19
- Re: io_close proposal, Marcus Brinkmann, 2002/05/19
- Re: io_close proposal, Thomas Bushnell, BSG, 2002/05/19