On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 07:37:38PM +0100, Kay Sievers wrote: > On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Daniel Mack <dan...@zonque.org> wrote: > >> Also it seems that now there is only support for one level of nested > >> domains? will this be increased? > > > > I don't think so. What's your use case here? > > We never tried, but the code was supposed to allow stacking of them. > I'll fix it. Yes I was thinking of applications that create domains, they wont work if they are inside a container domain!
> >> 2) What about creating custom endpoints on the bus that was already > >> unrefed ? IMHO this is the same scenario! > > > > That shouldn't happen of course. We've been dealing with locking in that > > area quite a bit, but we might have overlooked something. Please send a > > patch if you see such an unsafe locking scenario. > > > >> Hmm perhaps this can be improved by taking a ref ASAP and revalidate > >> objects by checking the "*->disconnected" ? > > > > ->disconnected isn't so much of an issue, and we do check for it where > > necessary. Apart from that, users that store a pointer to any object > > should take a reference, so it can't disappear underneath them. But > > again, if you think we've overlooked anything, let us know. Reviewing > > all these details is certainly much appreciated. > > I'll add a few more "disconnected checks" before we link into the > parent objects. Yes, I've located some sites, and I'm trying to do more tests... I'll get back to you, Thanks Daniel, Kay! > Kay -- Djalal Harouni http://opendz.org _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel