Re: Trying to run a Mumble Server

Hello, Samuel Thibault, le Sat 21 Sep 2013 16:20:33 +0200, a écrit : > > > Yes. SOCK_CLOEXEC is not currently supported > > > > Well, it is supposed to; see what I wrote in > > . > > Just to follow-

[PATCH 6/9] startup: be more specific in the shutdown message

Use the BOOT macro to print either halt or reboot instead of the generic shutdown in the event of an system shutdown. * startup/startup.c (reboot_system): Use more specific message. --- startup/startup.c |2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/startup/startup.c b/st

[PATCH 5/9] startup: remove unused function run_for_real

* startup/startup.c (run_for_real): Remove function. --- startup/startup.c | 89 - 1 file changed, 89 deletions(-) diff --git a/startup/startup.c b/startup/startup.c index f54e650..a569fe2 100644 --- a/startup/startup.c +++ b/startup/startup.c

[PATCH 9/9] XXX fix build

--- exec/Makefile|2 +- ext2fs/Makefile |3 ++- startup/Makefile |2 +- 3 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/exec/Makefile b/exec/Makefile index 890ee4b..f975632 100644 --- a/exec/Makefile +++ b/exec/Makefile @@ -22,7 +22,7 @@ makemode := server SRCS =

[PATCH 7/9] startup: fix the declaration of the *_server functions

* startup/startup.c (demuxer): Fix the declaration of the server functions. --- startup/startup.c |4 +++- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/startup/startup.c b/startup/startup.c index b872188..fd5f1c2 100644 --- a/startup/startup.c +++ b/startup/startup.c @@ -412,7

[PATCH 8/9] poc /servers/startup

--- startup/Makefile |2 +- startup/startup.c | 124 + 2 files changed, 125 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/startup/Makefile b/startup/Makefile index 277fee4..23d35cb 100644 --- a/startup/Makefile +++ b/startup/Makefile @@ -21,7

[PATCH 4/9] startup: do not pass signals on to the child

Formerly /hurd/startup would forward all signals to the child it started (e.g. /libexec/runsystem). The motivation for doing so is not revealed in the comments, nor it is mentioned in the history of the version control system. This patch removes the forwarding of signals to the child. * startup/

[PATCH 3/9] Add a minimalist init program

--- init/Makefile | 24 + init/init.c | 152 + 2 files changed, 176 insertions(+) create mode 100644 init/Makefile create mode 100644 init/init.c diff --git a/init/Makefile b/init/Makefile new file mode 100644 index 000..0

POC: split init into /hurd/startup and /hurd/init

Hi, this is my proof of concept patch series splitting /hurd/init into /hurd/startup and /hurd/init. [PATCH 1/9] Add proc_set_init_task, make runsystem pid 1 Unchanged, just rebased to master. [PATCH 2/9] startup: rename init to startup [PATCH 3/9] Add a minimalist init program The new /hurd/i

[PATCH 1/9] Add proc_set_init_task, make runsystem pid 1

* hurd/process.defs (proc_set_init_task): New procedure. * hurd/process_reply.defs (proc_set_init_task): Likewise. * hurd/process_request.defs (proc_set_init_task): Likewise. * include/pids.h: Add HURD_PID_INIT as 1, adjust others accordingly. * init/init.c (start_child): Register the child task. *

Re: [RFC] Implementing a simple mutex using simple locks and futex calls

On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 11:34:36AM +0200, Marin Ramesa wrote: > On 23.09.2013 10:35:34, Richard Braun wrote: > > Use the algorithms presented in "Futexes are tricky", I personally > > won't accept anything less after 2010... > > I do, it's actually the version from 2011. I just added the lock to t

Re: [RFC] Implementing a simple mutex using simple locks and futex calls

On 23.09.2013 10:35:34, Richard Braun wrote: > On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 09:13:25AM +0200, Marin Ramesa wrote: > > The idea is to implement a simple mutex using one atomic operation > > combined with futex calls. > > Use the algorithms presented in "Futexes are tricky", I personally > won't accept

Re: [RFC] Implementing a simple mutex using simple locks and futex calls

On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 09:13:25AM +0200, Marin Ramesa wrote: > The idea is to implement a simple mutex using one atomic operation > combined with futex calls. Use the algorithms presented in "Futexes are tricky", I personally won't accept anything less after 2010... -- Richard Braun

[RFC] Implementing a simple mutex using simple locks and futex calls

This is a second test and proof of concept for the new futex call. Please comment on this. I don't know if I used the simple locks correctly (this time I at least initialized it). The idea is to implement a simple mutex using one atomic operation combined with futex calls. First, the code: #i