On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 00:03 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > An interesting idea, though it doesn't really help with the problem at > hand: This thread (and I think the task it refers to) isn't about > logging from normal translators (which wouldn't need any special > facility to use syslog() in the canonical way), but from the low-level > Hurd servers.
Let's be clear what we mean by "low-level Hurd servers". The filesystem and pflocal are not such cases, except as they are starting up. We only need to worry, in fact, about cases where deadlock actually can occur; the most clear example is for non-multi-threaded servers. Are there any left? The other case is where the details of implementation produce a deadlock. For the servers concerned we should satisfy ourselves that no deadlock occurs, and then proceed. I cannot see any reason why, once the system is up and running, even proc cannot simply syslog just like anything else, provided it does not hold internal locks as it does so (and this should be true for *every* call to syslog anyhow, in whatever program). Thomas
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Bug-hurd mailing list Bug-hurd@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
