From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2006 20:38:26 +0100 From: Sascha Retzki To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] clunk clunk Message-ID: <20060103193826.GA502@routi.local.net> References: <775b8d190601031128t6efe9166ta02fad0dcf0f1d04@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <775b8d190601031128t6efe9166ta02fad0dcf0f1d04@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: mutt-ng/devel-r535 (NetBSD) Topicbox-Message-UUID: cf4aa4b8-ead0-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 06:28:48AM +1100, Bruce Ellis wrote: > When a process exits it closes it's fds, so it sends a > Tclunk ...but if the process it sends it to is exiting it can't > respond. It's in the same position. Call it "deadly embrace". Definitely not a nice situation. But from my (oh $god knows) limited understanding of the great picture, when does that happen? File server shutdowns? Wouldn't it be much nicer to make a "don't accept new connections, wait X seconds for the clients to clunk, if time is over, just clunk"-function. No other situations, none that I could think of, would result in the situation you described. > There is no close() in Inferno so the garbage collector is responsible. I don't know limbo well, but I don't know how it could work without close() in any way. Else see my rave above.