On 01/25/2010 04:29 PM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
I agree with Anthony that async message masking doesn't really affect the protocol proper. We could pretend it does so we can let protocol capability negotiation (which we need anyway) cover it. But I'm certainly fine with keeping it separate. Whether we call it protocol or not, the question whether we should permit changing the masks at any time is valid, I think. Permitting it adds a bit of conceptual complexity, as a command disabling reporting of an event can race with the event. But that's just giving clients some more rope. I'm fine with that.
Without disagreeing with the rest (which means I'm just nit-picking), there's no race. Once the command that disables an event report returns to the caller, the event can no longer be reported.
-- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
