lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Feb]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: New kernel - netscape hangs
Date
> 
> > > Im aware of that paticular posix stupidity. I guess the bar was opening
> > > early that evening.
> >
> > I think the POSIX concept is correct. The current Linux kernel will
>
> A more informative error would be better

Well, that is how POSIX works.

>
> > sleep forever. What is your suggestion to POSIX? I am collecting
> > comments on POSIX now.
>
> You assume that lock daemon state will not change. If we have no lock daemon
> response remotely we should wait. If we fail to talk to it we can error. We

It is not that there is no response. My patch returns an error when
the daemon doesn't exist on the the server.

> shouldn't assume we can decide at mount time if there is a lock daemon either.

I don't think my patch assumes anything. I have tested to start/stop
statd on the server. My patch works very well.

>
> How does following the same rules as the file system sound - soft you timeout,
> intr you ^C out and hard you sit and wait ?

As I said, my patch returns an error only when daemon is not running at all.
It doesn't make much senses to time out. Besides, how do you do ^C in netscape?
Remember the process will sleep forever.

>
> > > Then I don't follow why you change anything except that one return value (and
> > > that makes sense alone).
> >
> > I meant I fixed a Linux kernel bug which doesn't follow POSIX.
>
> The return code fixes a posix bug. But the rest ?

What rest?

--
H.J. Lu (hjl@gnu.org)

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:50    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans