* Terry Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020220 11:13] wrote:
> Mark Santcroos wrote:
>
> > I managed to create a simple linux program that had the same problem. From
> > there on it was easy...
> >
> > The problem was created by Alfred's locking commit of Jan 13.
> > (No hard feelings, it helped me
Mark Santcroos wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 16, 2002 at 01:02:09AM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
> > Pretty clearly, if it happens, and the process is truly
> > gone, then there is a resource track cleanup that's
> > missing (perhaps it's a reference that results from the
> > Linux mmap resource track clean
* Mark Santcroos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020220 03:52] wrote:
>
> It was indeed a linux_compat specific resource cleanup issue.
>
> I managed to create a simple linux program that had the same problem. From
> there on it was easy...
>
> The problem was created by Alfred's locking commit of Jan 13
On Sat, Feb 16, 2002 at 01:02:09AM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
> Pretty clearly, if it happens, and the process is truly
> gone, then there is a resource track cleanup that's
> missing (perhaps it's a reference that results from the
> Linux mmap resource track cleanup not releasing it?).
It was i
On Fri, Feb 15, 2002 at 07:35:39PM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
> > > Maybe it's losing an open instance in the resource
> > > track on close? That seems the most likely culprit...
> >
> > Do you mean in the linux emu case?
> > If so, please see my message stating that I also used a linux emu pro
Brooks Davis wrote:
> I think there's something else going on. You can hold open a vmnet
> device by the simple expedient of "cat /dev/vmnet0" and when I tested
> with a Linux cat and killed it with a "kill -9" it closed the descriptor
> properly. Some things I haven't tried, but though might ha
On Fri, Feb 15, 2002 at 07:35:39PM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
> I saw your message. It wasn't clear to me that you were
> simply exiting in the test, instead of actually closing
> the descriptor. I suspect that vmware just exits, and
> expects a resource tracking close on exit to free the
> ref
Mark Santcroos wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 04:59:41PM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
> > > There's one difference between vmware and a little hacked up test app.
> > > Linux emulation. It certaintly shouldn't matter, but it might be worth
> > > compiling the test program on a linux machine and
Hi Terry,
On Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 04:59:41PM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
> > There's one difference between vmware and a little hacked up test app.
> > Linux emulation. It certaintly shouldn't matter, but it might be worth
> > compiling the test program on a linux machine and seeing it it leaves
Brooks Davis wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 11:13:58AM -0800, whoever wrote:
> > how come it gets lost in the vmware case and not in your simple app.
> > also does ifconfig report that the vmnet device is opened by the pid
> > of your app between open and close of the simple app?
>
> There's on
On Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 11:32:06AM -0800, whoever wrote:
> > There's one difference between vmware and a little hacked up test app.
> > Linux emulation. It certaintly shouldn't matter, but it might be worth
> > compiling the test program on a linux machine and seeing it it leaves
> > the device i
On Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 11:19:37AM -0800, Brooks Davis wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 11:13:58AM -0800, whoever wrote:
> >
> > how come it gets lost in the vmware case and not in your simple app.
> > also does ifconfig report that the vmnet device is opened by the pid
> > of your app between op
On Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 11:13:58AM -0800, whoever wrote:
>
> how come it gets lost in the vmware case and not in your simple app.
> also does ifconfig report that the vmnet device is opened by the pid
> of your app between open and close of the simple app?
There's one difference between vmware a
FROM: Mark SantcroosDATE: 02/12/2002 02:58:30SUBJECT: RE: Ethernet tunnel device On
Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 12:14:32PM -0800, Brooks Davis wrote:
|> It sounds like there's some sort of a bug in the close code. You are
|> sure the previous instance is really gone, right? If it
On Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 12:14:32PM -0800, Brooks Davis wrote:
> It sounds like there's some sort of a bug in the close code. You are
> sure the previous instance is really gone, right? If it is, that's
> another issue.
The tapclose() function is not called at all in this case. (I've put some
de
to destroy the device using ifconfig gives an error
> too which (i believe) it should because destroy is not
> for ethernet tunnel device if I am not wrong.
>
> but there are no options to destroy the ethernet tunnel
> device in ifconfig Should there be?
>
> I cant t
notification of last delete in devfs so deleting a node
doesn't do anyway.
> trying to destroy the device using ifconfig gives an error
> too which (i believe) it should because destroy is not
> for ethernet tunnel device if I am not wrong.
>=20
> but there are no options t
from /dev
ifconfig still lists them !! may be its because of
devfs ... but there ought to be someway.
trying to destroy the device using ifconfig gives an error
too which (i believe) it should because destroy is not
for ethernet tunnel device if I am not wrong.
but there are no options to
from /dev
ifconfig still lists them !! may be its because of
devfs ... but there ought to be someway.
trying to destroy the device using ifconfig gives an error
too which (i believe) it should because destroy is not
for ethernet tunnel device if I am not wrong.
but there are no options to
19 matches
Mail list logo
