On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 02:35:13PM +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
> On Mon, 2016-03-14 at 14:23 +0100, Richard Braun wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 02:16:17PM +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > > Svante Signell, on Mon 14 Mar 2016 12:20:18 +0100, wrote:
> > > > Why, because it doesn't have a sleep
Svante Signell, on Mon 14 Mar 2016 14:35:13 +0100, wrote:
> On Mon, 2016-03-14 at 14:23 +0100, Richard Braun wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 02:16:17PM +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > > Svante Signell, on Mon 14 Mar 2016 12:20:18 +0100, wrote:
> > > > Why, because it doesn't have a sleep state
On Mon, 2016-03-14 at 14:23 +0100, Richard Braun wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 02:16:17PM +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > Svante Signell, on Mon 14 Mar 2016 12:20:18 +0100, wrote:
> > > Why, because it doesn't have a sleep statement?
> >
> > I was referring to strict logic: it's not just beca
Svante Signell, on Mon 14 Mar 2016 14:29:56 +0100, wrote:
> On Mon, 2016-03-14 at 12:20 +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
> > On Mon, 2016-03-14 at 12:02 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
>
> > > > And with my old implementation it worked perfectly too.
> > >
> > > Because it was synchronous, which was po
On Mon, 2016-03-14 at 12:20 +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
> On Mon, 2016-03-14 at 12:02 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > > And with my old implementation it worked perfectly too.
> >
> > Because it was synchronous, which was posing other problems.
Yet the problem is if the implementation should
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 02:16:17PM +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Svante Signell, on Mon 14 Mar 2016 12:20:18 +0100, wrote:
> > Why, because it doesn't have a sleep statement?
>
> I was referring to strict logic: it's not just because it happens to
Also, using sleep for synchronization is always
Svante Signell, on Mon 14 Mar 2016 12:20:18 +0100, wrote:
> On Mon, 2016-03-14 at 12:02 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > Svante Signell, on Mon 14 Mar 2016 09:05:56 +0100, wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2016-03-14 at 00:57 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > > > Svante Signell, on Sun 13 Mar 2016 14:19:35 +01
On Mon, 2016-03-14 at 12:02 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Svante Signell, on Mon 14 Mar 2016 09:05:56 +0100, wrote:
> > On Mon, 2016-03-14 at 00:57 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > > Svante Signell, on Sun 13 Mar 2016 14:19:35 +0100, wrote:
> > > > Running the code reveals that the current imple
Svante Signell, on Mon 14 Mar 2016 09:05:56 +0100, wrote:
> On Mon, 2016-03-14 at 00:57 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > Svante Signell, on Sun 13 Mar 2016 14:19:35 +0100, wrote:
> > > Running the code reveals that the current implementation in glibc is
> > > buggy:
> > >
> > > ./scm_rights+cred
On Mon, 2016-03-14 at 00:57 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Svante Signell, on Sun 13 Mar 2016 14:19:35 +0100, wrote:
> > Running the code reveals that the current implementation in glibc is buggy:
> >
> > ./scm_rights+creds_recv
> > Number of SCM_RIGHTS [<=3], SCM_CREDS [<=2]: [1,1]
Hello,
Svante Signell, on Sun 13 Mar 2016 14:19:35 +0100, wrote:
> Running the code reveals that the current implementation in glibc is buggy:
>
> ./scm_rights+creds_recv
> Number of SCM_RIGHTS [<=3], SCM_CREDS [<=2]: [1,1]
> Input error: Using defaults:
> NRIGHTS = 1, NCREDS = 1
> scm_rights+c
On Sun, 2015-09-20 at 20:28 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Samuel Thibault, le Sun 20 Sep 2015 13:17:36 +0200, a écrit :
> > I'll have a stab at cleaning your patches.
>
> I have pushed the result on the t/sendmsg-SCM_CREDS branch. Note that I
> have refactored the t/sendmsg-SCM_RIGHTS branch, s
12 matches
Mail list logo
