> so, adding server_named_pipe_read() avoids this issue by doing locking
> (like server_get_unix_fd()) does, i see)
$ git commit -a -m '#17185 - server-based read_named_pipe. does
blocking in client and non-blocking reads (using recv MSG_PEEK) in the
server. messy as hell.'
says it all, really
Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> ohhh, ok. yeah, you're right, it would be _incredibly_ useful to
> have message-moding / named-pipes in the linux kernel.
You may want to check the Longene project (former Linux Unified Kernel).
Maybe they already have it implemented in kernel.
http://www.
On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 9:29 AM, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton writes:
>
>>> You can't do that stuff on the client side. You either have to do all
>>> pipe I/O in the server, or add named pipe support in the kernel. The
>>> latter is harder, but would be much more useful
Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton writes:
>> You can't do that stuff on the client side. You either have to do all
>> pipe I/O in the server, or add named pipe support in the kernel. The
>> latter is harder, but would be much more useful.
>
> well, not entirely knowing the difference, i'm guessing th
> You can't do that stuff on the client side. You either have to do all
> pipe I/O in the server, or add named pipe support in the kernel. The
> latter is harder, but would be much more useful.
well, not entirely knowing the difference, i'm guessing that i'm
adding named pipe support in the kerne
Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton writes:
> also i have double-copies of server_set_named_pipe_info(), one in
> kernel32 and another in ntdll because i am using it in both places, i
> think SetNamedPipeHandleState() should be calling an NtFsControlIo
> rather than using server_set_named_pipe_info() bu
http://bugs.winehq.org/attachment.cgi?id=19132
ok this is the beginnings of an implementation of messagemode, it
passes the test1 and send2recv2 tests and fails the shortread test as
part of PeekNamedPipe(). i'm not exactly sure why, yet. i get the
distinct feeling that there's confusion over wh
juan, hi,
>> Some nice C test cases
>> would go a long way toward a correct implementation.
>
> ok, then that's where i'll start. i've got a qemu'd xp so i can
> actually test that they work properly on nt.
>
> i've just dragged the tng source code out of cvs, first time in ages,
> so there's
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 6:41 PM, Juan Lang wrote:
> Hi Luke,
hi juan :)
>> the issue with the implementation of nt named pipes on top of _just_
>> streams (unix sockets) is this: two packets sent get blatted into one
>> read.
>
> You are correct. We've known about that bug for ages, but never
Hi Luke,
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 9:22 AM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
wrote:
> i've encountered some bugs (thanks to python again :) ) in the wine
> implementation of nt named pipes, and have raised it as a bug
> http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17195 but it started getting
> complicated s
folks, hi,
if you recall, i implemented nt named pipes in samba tng, and also
implemented the use of nt named pipes as a transport in freedce, for
when i ported freedce to win32. so i have quite a bit of experience
when it comes to nt named pipes.
i've encountered some bugs (thanks to python again
11 matches
Mail list logo
