blob: 1d0e92a363913320cd83b208e056830d01426f93 (
plain)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
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
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
|
