Da Zheng, le Mon 28 Dec 2009 10:31:26 +0800, a écrit :
> On 09-12-27 下午6:38, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > Da Zheng, le Sun 27 Dec 2009 16:39:04 +0800, a écrit :
> >> Is the process above correct?
> >
> > I have never actually programmed the architectures where things work
> > like this (powerpc & su
Carl Fredrik Hammar, le Sun 27 Dec 2009 22:24:24 +0100, a écrit :
> OK, I think I have a vague picture of what is going on:
> ports_interrupt_self_on_port_death
> ports_interrupt_self_on_notification
> ports_interrupt_rpc_on_notification,
> which requests notification (to the same port as
> auth_se
On 09-12-27 下午6:38, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Da Zheng, le Sun 27 Dec 2009 16:39:04 +0800, a écrit :
>> Is the process above correct?
>
> I have never actually programmed the architectures where things work
> like this (powerpc & such), but that's what I have understood from the
> code and explanat
Carl Fredrik Hammar, le Sun 27 Dec 2009 20:56:21 +0100, a écrit :
> If the notification request is canceled before auth_user_authenticate
> returns there should be no problem.
I tried a crude
error_t err2 = mach_port_request_notification(mach_task_self(),
rendezvous, MACH_NOTIFY_DEAD_N
Carl Fredrik Hammar, le Sun 27 Dec 2009 20:56:21 +0100, a écrit :
> If the notification request is canceled before auth_user_authenticate
> returns there should be no problem.
Ok, I see.
Samuel
Carl Fredrik Hammar, le Sun 27 Dec 2009 22:24:24 +0100, a écrit :
> AFAICT, after auth_server_authenticate_reply returns _hurdsig_abort_rpcs
> can not hijack it, so your solution should work.
I've checked more in the kernel internals, maybe there is a race
window, even if very unlikely.
ext2fs is
On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 08:56:21PM +0100, Carl Fredrik Hammar wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 26, 2009 at 09:12:08PM +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > I've checked again the result
> >
> > Carl Fredrik Hammar, le Sat 26 Dec 2009 19:58:12 +0100, a écrit :
> > > > There is this issue as well, which I have fixe
Da Zheng, le Sun 27 Dec 2009 16:39:04 +0800, a écrit :
> Is the process above correct?
I have never actually programmed the architectures where things work
like this (powerpc & such), but that's what I have understood from the
code and explanations here and there, yes. It's a sort of transactiona
On Sat, Dec 26, 2009 at 09:12:08PM +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> I've checked again the result
>
> Carl Fredrik Hammar, le Sat 26 Dec 2009 19:58:12 +0100, a écrit :
> > > There is this issue as well, which I have fixed already in commit
> > > 041baa80 (and indeed seen cases where it helped), but
Hi,
Samuel Thibault wrote:
>> After I read this introduction, I checked some atomic operations
>> implementation such as atomic_add_return in Linux for Aphla processors.
>> Before and after these operations change the variable, they put memory
>> barriers. So it's something like this:
>> smp_mb
10 matches
Mail list logo