Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 19:38:45 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com> To: "Brian F. Feldman" <green@FreeBSD.org> Cc: current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Testers wanted: reentrant resolver Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10402201927260.12256-100000@pcnet5.pcnet.com> In-Reply-To: <200402210024.i1L0OfAi014196@green.homeunix.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 20 Feb 2004, Brian F. Feldman wrote: > Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com> wrote: > > Ugh, can you put h_errno inside the per-thread res stuff. > > We shouldn't need to have to add special hooks in the > > threads libraries for this. > > Please explain what you're saying further. On correctly-threaded operating > systems, h_errno is just like errno -- and I made it act EXACTLY as errno > acts, and is per-thread storage for everything but the first thread. It's > absolutely necessary if we want to return the correct errors; even if > everything else in the world is totally reentrant, if h_errno isn't, the > wrong errors can be returned! What "special hooks" do you mean? There's no > way to not change probably hundreds of lines of code without actually doing > the work to make h_errno thread-safe. It's the only proper thing to do. The implementation of __h_errno() need not depend on something special stuffed in struct pthread. Use thread-local storage (pthread_getspecific()) like you did for the res_send_private stuff. Especially since these interfaces should be deprecated in favor of what looks to be BIND 8.2.2 interfaces (according to the Solaris man pages). -- Dan Eischen
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.4.10.10402201927260.12256-100000>