DragonFly bugs List (threaded) for 2004-04
Re: troubles with caps
Matthew Dillon <dillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> :> Ah, so that's what client.c is doing. OK, well there's no good reason
> :> to share the connection; I just wanted to clarify that limitation.
> :Yeah... servers are one to many clients. No two servers should have
> :the same name, though the current code allows it... Hiten has a patch
> :that seems to work though :).
> That's on purpose. There is a flag, CAPS_EXCL, that can be used to
> disallow namespace overloading. Namespace overloading is useful when
> restarting a service because it allows the new service to register
> its port before the old service is killed. Clients then only see a
> single interruption and can immediately (successfully) reconnect.
Hmmm... I think that maybe there should be a flag to allow two
services with the same name to co-exist rather than one to disallow it?
EXCL is an obvious flag choice for the way things are now
I think having two with the same name is the more rare case and the way it is
sure confused me :).
Wouldn't the current situation be a race when calling caps_drop and caps_hold
to increment and decrement the reference counts?
> Matthew Dillon