On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 11:15 PM Samuel Thibault <samuel.thiba...@gnu.org> wrote: > > Sergey Bugaev, le mar. 11 avril 2023 10:44:17 +0300, a ecrit: > > On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 1:03 AM Samuel Thibault <samuel.thiba...@gnu.org> > > wrote: > > > I tend to be very cautious with reply port reuse since it can confuse > > > servers a lot when e.g. interrupted, so it's generally safer not to try > > > to reuse them. > > > > Huh? Confuse how? > > On interruption, it's hard to know whether the server will actually send > a message on the reply port or not, in the end. So if you re-use a reply > port but unfortunately the server sent a reply on it in the end, you get > all reply messages shifted.
Yes, but this is confusing the client, not the server. But I agree that we must destroy the port on which we have made an RFC but have not received a reply. This isn't unique to interruptions, it's a general thing with msg recv timing out. Sergey
