[email protected], le Mon 14 Mar 2011 03:21:43 +0100, a écrit : > > There, the > > rendez-vous port is thus the same as the reply port obtained above, > > with the *same name*. > > - reauth() destroys the rendez-vous port (and thus the name!) > > - a bit later, diskfs_S_io_reauthenticate has finished its work, > > and deallocates its rendez-vous port. But the name doesn't exist any > > more. Bad. > > I wonder, why is the rendez-vous port actually destroyed, instead of > just unreferencing the right?
(using mach_port_deallocate instead of mach_port_destroy indeed seems to fix the issue, but there may be reasons for destroy rather than deallocate?) Samuel
