From: cinap_lenrek@gmx.de
To: 9fans@9fans.net
Subject: Re: [9fans] notes and traps
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2008 20:09:49 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <994ac677ae295f63e42e22b7cbbe5a70@gmx.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <003239afe18d1b7672c1f71363ec9e64@coraid.com>
> i'm not convinced that you've explained why this change is
> correct or why it could solve the problem. after all, the
> NNOTED array is only 5 entries long. what if one gets 5
> user notes before the system note?
> do you kill the process (isn't this how it works now?),
> make notes unreliable or block the sender? none of these
> options seems like an improvement to me.
Hm, i think here would be a better way to handle it without
losing user notes while make sure internal system notes
get posted (and handled) in any case.
What if we change postnote to:
int
postnote(Proc *p, int dolock, char *n, int flag)
{
int x, s, ret;
Rendez *r;
Proc *d, **l;
if(dolock)
qlock(&p->debug);
if(flag != NUser){
x = 0;
if(p->nnote < NNOTE){
if(p->nnote)
memmove(&p->note[0], &p->note[1], p->nnote * sizeof(p->note[0]));
p->nnote++;
}
} else {
x = -1;
if(p->nnote+1 < NNOTE)
x = p->nnote++;
}
ret = 0;
if(x >= 0) {
strcpy(p->note[x].msg, n);
p->note[x].flag = flag;
ret = 1;
}
p->notepending = 1;
if(dolock)
qunlock(&p->debug);
...
In that case, if a external note is posted, we make sure here is
always room for one further internal note in the array. (see the
p->nnote+1 < NNOTE)
On arrival of a internal note, we move the rest down the array
and put our note in the first entry.
So the following conditions hold true:
- internal notes get *always* posted (so the process gets terminated
if its not handled or while in the note handler)
- we do not drop external notes on internal note arrival and the sender
can detect if posting the note failed.
- internal notes get not queued after external notes so they will be
handled by the next call to notify() and not tick notify() to think
that while processing a previous user note, that this caused an
internal note and kill the process before it has a chance to see the
that note.
Anything wrong here?
--
cinap
prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-08-30 18:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-08-28 13:21 Kernel Panic
2008-08-28 14:09 ` erik quanstrom
2008-08-28 15:28 ` Kernel Panic
2008-08-29 10:04 ` Kernel Panic
2008-08-29 10:09 ` Kernel Panic
2008-08-29 18:26 ` erik quanstrom
2008-08-30 2:18 ` cinap_lenrek
2008-08-30 3:38 ` erik quanstrom
2008-08-30 5:48 ` cinap_lenrek
2008-08-30 10:50 ` Steve Simon
2008-08-30 14:04 ` erik quanstrom
2008-08-30 17:40 ` cinap_lenrek
2008-08-30 18:09 ` cinap_lenrek [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=994ac677ae295f63e42e22b7cbbe5a70@gmx.de \
--to=cinap_lenrek@gmx.de \
--cc=9fans@9fans.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).