Svante Signell, on Mon 14 Mar 2016 14:29:56 +0100, wrote: > On Mon, 2016-03-14 at 12:20 +0100, Svante Signell wrote: > > On Mon, 2016-03-14 at 12:02 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote: > > > > > And with my old implementation it worked perfectly too. > > > > > > Because it was synchronous, which was posing other problems. > > Yet the problem is if the implementation should be synchronous or > asynchronous.
In my memory you said you had issues with the dbus testsuite precisely because of this: sendmsg() then recvmsg() done by the same thread. > > Have you checked that all dbus/glib tests pass? I have not :( > > Why did you edit this comment out? Because I'm currently at work, and so I can't spend the time to answer everything or do stuff. > This could supply a user case answer to the above question. Strict > logic or not. Being in a testsuite does not make it a "user case". There are a lot of weird behaviors you could put in a testsuite, that the standards don't actually enforce, and which don't actually have any real use. I do believe there is a potential need for asynchronous behavior, while I don't believe there is a potential need for post-mortem behavior. Samuel