|author||Samuel Thibault <email@example.com>||2015-02-18 00:58:35 +0100|
|committer||Samuel Thibault <firstname.lastname@example.org>||2015-02-18 00:58:35 +0100|
Revert "rename open_issues.mdwn to service_solahart_jakarta_selatan__082122541663.mdwn"
This reverts commit 95878586ec7611791f4001a4ee17abf943fae3c1.
Diffstat (limited to 'open_issues/proc_server_proc_exception_raise.mdwn')
1 files changed, 37 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/open_issues/proc_server_proc_exception_raise.mdwn b/open_issues/proc_server_proc_exception_raise.mdwn
new file mode 100644
@@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
+[[!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
+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>
+ < 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