[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: notify_no_senders oddity
From: |
Thomas Bushnell BSG |
Subject: |
Re: notify_no_senders oddity |
Date: |
Mon, 01 Jan 2007 13:54:56 -0800 |
On Mon, 2007-01-01 at 22:48 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG, le Mon 01 Jan 2007 12:18:17 -0800, a écrit :
> > > > > bd->port = ipc_port_alloc_kernel ();
> > > > > ipc_port_nsrequest (bd->port, 1, notify, ¬ify);
> > > > >
> > > > > dev = (device_t) ns->not_header.msgh_remote_port;
>
> > The MiG converters for the various types are not identical.
>
> But how is the differenciation done in this case?
The mig .defs file declares a port for the argument, and when MiG
generates the server side stub, it automagically calls a function
declared for that type between the RPC reception and the server
function.
> Both types are used for the same port.
Yes, so?
Thomas
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
- Re: notify_no_senders oddity, Samuel Thibault, 2007/01/01
- Re: notify_no_senders oddity, Richard Braun, 2007/01/01
- Re: notify_no_senders oddity, Samuel Thibault, 2007/01/01
- Re: notify_no_senders oddity, Thomas Bushnell BSG, 2007/01/01
- Re: notify_no_senders oddity, Samuel Thibault, 2007/01/01
- Re: notify_no_senders oddity,
Thomas Bushnell BSG <=
- Re: notify_no_senders oddity, Samuel Thibault, 2007/01/01
- Re: notify_no_senders oddity, Thomas Bushnell BSG, 2007/01/01
- Re: notify_no_senders oddity, Samuel Thibault, 2007/01/01
- Re: notify_no_senders oddity, Samuel Thibault, 2007/01/01
Re: notify_no_senders oddity, Thomas Bushnell BSG, 2007/01/01