Carl Fredrik Hammar, le Wed 30 Dec 2009 12:40:02 +0100, a écrit : > On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 11:46:09PM +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote: > > Carl Fredrik Hammar, le Tue 29 Dec 2009 23:40:21 +0100, a écrit : > > > On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 11:10:00PM +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote: > > > > > > > > That's the same. To make it clearer, see attached patch. > > > > > > I meant in the other branch of the if (though for some reason I didn't > > > consider the server part's if). > > > > Err, what for? In that case, dead name notification isn't > > requested, is it? Or is it always requested by default and > > ports_interrupt_self_on_port_death() is just to change the behavior? > > (I'm a complete newbie for such parts of the Hurd...) > > Nothing magical is happening.
I don't mean magical, but automatic. > The notification has been requested by > auth_server_authenticate which is waiting for auth_user_authenticate > to arive. Only when the user isn't arrived already. > In the then part of the if statement, the user has found that the > server is waiting for the condition to be signaled, which is right > time to cancel the notification. Err, isn't the notification bound to an RPC? (really, I don't know anything about these and the Mach documentation doesn't help me so much). Samuel
