From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri Feb 20 18:02:15 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from green.homeunix.org (freefall.freebsd.org [216.136.204.21])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 614BA16A4CE; Fri, 20 Feb 2004 18:02:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from green.homeunix.org (green@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by green.homeunix.org (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i1L22EHS035370;
	Fri, 20 Feb 2004 21:02:14 -0500 (EST)
	(envelope-from green@green.homeunix.org)
Received: from localhost (green@localhost)i1L22D7K035367;
	Fri, 20 Feb 2004 21:02:14 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <200402210202.i1L22D7K035367@green.homeunix.org>
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.3 04/04/2003 with nmh-1.0.4
To: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com>
In-Reply-To: Message from Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com> 
	<Pine.GSO.4.10.10402202024001.28130-100000@pcnet5.pcnet.com> 
From: "Brian F. Feldman" <green@FreeBSD.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 21:02:13 -0500
Sender: green@green.homeunix.org
cc: current@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: Testers wanted: reentrant resolver 
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2004 02:02:15 -0000

Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Feb 2004, Brian F. Feldman wrote:
> > Ok, just had a "good idea".  Since h_errno belongs to the resolver, too, why 
> > don't I just implement __h_errno() inside res_init.c and make the storage 
> > come from the same place the per-thread struct _res {} storage comes from?  
> > That should make you happy, and it makes me happy because it doesn't add an 
> > "extra" failure point.
> 
> That's exactly what I meant when I said:
> 
> > > Ugh, can you put h_errno inside the per-thread res stuff.
> 
> :-)

Hah, if you would have said "put it in struct res_per_thread {}, since 
h_errno is defined by the resolver(3) API anyway" it would have saved a lot 
of time.  Patch updated :)
<URL:http://green.homeunix.org/~green/reentrant_resolver.patch>
Could you take a look at my test program (that I put in src/tools/) to see 
if I made any pthreading errors?

I'd also like someone else more familiar with -lthr's kernel side to take a 
look at why that's crashing...

-- 
Brian Fundakowski Feldman                           \'[ FreeBSD ]''''''''''\
  <> green@FreeBSD.org                               \  The Power to Serve! \
 Opinions expressed are my own.                       \,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,\