Re: [PATCH] Check for rendezvous port death in auth server

Hi, On Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 06:35:02PM +0200, Carl Fredrik Hammar wrote: > On Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 12:17:12AM +0200, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net > wrote: > > I'm a bit ambivalent about this... On one hand, returning the right > > error code right away is probably less confusing; but on the other > >

Re: [PATCH] Check for rendezvous port death in auth server

Hi, On Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 12:17:12AM +0200, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net wrote: > > I'm a bit ambivalent about this... On one hand, returning the right > error code right away is probably less confusing; but on the other hand, > it adds extra code paths (with all the associated disadvantages) for >

[bug #29655] linkat() fails because __file_name_lookup_at() problems

Update of bug #29655 (project hurd): Item Group:None => Standard Compliance Assigned to:None => pochu Reproducibility:None => Every Time

Re: [PATCH 1/3] Add a new exec_exec_file_name RPC

Hi, On Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 12:00:13AM +0200, olafbuddenha...@web.de wrote: > Keep in mind that this convention stems from a time where people > actually used to *print* code, on a 80 column line printer... So it was > important to strictly observe the limit back then. Nowadays, screens are > larg