path: root/open_issues/proc_server_proc_exception_raise.mdwn
diff options
author <diana@web>2015-02-16 20:08:03 +0100
committerGNU Hurd web pages engine <>2015-02-16 20:08:03 +0100
commit95878586ec7611791f4001a4ee17abf943fae3c1 (patch)
tree847cf658ab3c3208a296202194b16a6550b243cf /open_issues/proc_server_proc_exception_raise.mdwn
parent8063426bf7848411b0ef3626d57be8cb4826715e (diff)
rename open_issues.mdwn to service_solahart_jakarta_selatan__082122541663.mdwn
Diffstat (limited to 'open_issues/proc_server_proc_exception_raise.mdwn')
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 37 deletions
diff --git a/open_issues/proc_server_proc_exception_raise.mdwn b/open_issues/proc_server_proc_exception_raise.mdwn
deleted file mode 100644
index 1d0e92a3..00000000
--- a/open_issues/proc_server_proc_exception_raise.mdwn
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,37 +0,0 @@
-[[!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
-[[!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>
- < 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