From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <62bde7ee0bc7ccdee84657319b0d5eb3@terzarima.net> Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 03:17:01 +1100 Message-ID: From: Bruce Ellis To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: Re: [9fans] A little more ado about async Tclunk Topicbox-Message-UUID: 72098084-ead6-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 gee i thought i was the first to say deadly-embrace on this thread. it's not only problematic it's wrong. just reiterating what little shaun said circa 1999. brucee On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 3:02 AM, roger peppe wrote: > On 29 October 2010 17:01, Charles Forsyth wrote: >>>Do you do completely asynch clunks or just the wait for the response?. >> >> it uses `completely' async clunks, which is why it can be broken. >> >> having the original process send the Tclunk and not wait >> for the Rclunk is different. > > for some reason, though i didn't look at the diffs, i thought > that's what this patch did. > > even sending Tclunk synchronously is still problematic in quite a few scenarios, > for the reasons i outlined above. > >