[[!meta copyright="Copyright © 2011 Free Software Foundation, Inc."]] [[!meta license="""[[!toggle id="license" text="GFDL 1.2+"]][[!toggleable id="license" text="Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled [[GNU Free Documentation License|/fdl]]."]]"""]] [[!tag open_issue_hurd]] IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2011-08-11 < youpi> in which error cases a reply port will actually have been consumed by mach_msg ? < youpi> it seems at least MACH_SEND_NOTIFY_IN_PROGRESS do? < braunr> http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/gnumach-doc/Message-Send.html#Message-Send < braunr> "These return codes imply that the message was returned to the caller with a pseudo-receive operation: " < braunr> isn't it what you're looking for ? < youpi> well, it's hard to tell from the name < youpi> I don't know what "pseudo-receiv operation" means < braunr> it's described below < youpi> ew < braunr> it looks close enough to a normal receive to assume it consumes the reply port < youpi> so it's even more complex than what I thought < youpi> well, no, it returns the right < youpi> actually the error I'm getting is MACH_RCV_INVALID_NAME < youpi> which I guess means the sending part succeeded < youpi> the case at stake is proc/mgt.c: S_proc_exception_raise() < youpi> when the proc_exception_raise() forward fails < youpi> currently we always return 0, but if proc_exception_raise() actually managed to send the message, the reply port was consumed and MIG_NO_REPLY should be returned instead