Thanks Alex, I applied patches 2 through 5.
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 11:01:33AM -0700, Alex Wang wrote:
> Thanks Ben,
>
> It all makes sense now.
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 10:59 AM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 05:34:26PM -0700, Alex Wang wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jun 6, 2013
Thanks Ben,
It all makes sense now.
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 10:59 AM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 05:34:26PM -0700, Alex Wang wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 4:27 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 09:49:11AM -0700, Alex Wang wrote:
> > > > The 2/17. 3/17
On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 05:34:26PM -0700, Alex Wang wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 4:27 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 09:49:11AM -0700, Alex Wang wrote:
> > > The 2/17. 3/17 look good to me.
> >
> > > For this patch, want to ask few questions:
> > >
> > > 1. why does the pre
Thanks Ben for the answers.
Few more questions.
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 4:27 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 09:49:11AM -0700, Alex Wang wrote:
> > The 2/17. 3/17 look good to me.
>
> Thanks.
>
> > For this patch, want to ask few questions:
> >
> > 1. why does the previous impleme
On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 09:49:11AM -0700, Alex Wang wrote:
> The 2/17. 3/17 look good to me.
Thanks.
> For this patch, want to ask few questions:
>
> 1. why does the previous implementation cannot guarantee thread safety (An
> example?)? Is this related to the sigchld_ related functions?
A sing
Hey Ben,
The 2/17. 3/17 look good to me.
For this patch, want to ask few questions:
1. why does the previous implementation cannot guarantee thread safety (An
example?)? Is this related to the sigchld_ related functions?
2. For the "process_register()", the comment still talks about blocking
SI
