From owner-freebsd-java@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Dec 12 01:04:52 2006
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-java@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: freebsd-java@freebsd.org
Delivered-To: freebsd-java@freebsd.org
Received: from localhost.my.domain (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 720F616A675;
	Tue, 12 Dec 2006 01:04:52 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from davidxu@freebsd.org)
From: David Xu <davidxu@freebsd.org>
To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 09:04:49 +0800
User-Agent: KMail/1.8.2
References: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0612111535280.32258@decibel.pvv.ntnu.no>
	<200612120816.07608.davidxu@freebsd.org>
	<Pine.LNX.4.62.0612120142010.30236@decibel.pvv.ntnu.no>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0612120142010.30236@decibel.pvv.ntnu.no>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200612120904.49744.davidxu@freebsd.org>
Cc: Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>, "Arne H. Juul" <arnej@pvv.ntnu.no>,
	freebsd-java@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: close() of active socket does not work on FreeBSD 6
X-BeenThere: freebsd-java@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Porting Java to FreeBSD <freebsd-java.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-java>,
	<mailto:freebsd-java-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-java>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-java@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-java-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-java>,
	<mailto:freebsd-java-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 01:04:52 -0000

On Tuesday 12 December 2006 08:49, Arne H. Juul wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Dec 2006, David Xu wrote:
> > On Tuesday 12 December 2006 06:34, Arne H. Juul wrote:
> > <snip>
> >
> >> This is exactly the sort of issue that should be solved by the
> >> thread library / kernel threads implementation and not in every
> >> threaded application that needs it, in my view.
> >
> > It should not be done in new thread library, do you want a bloat
> > and error-prone thread library ? Instead if this semantic is really
> > necessary, it should be done in kernel.
>
> Well, it depends on the alternatives.
> If a clean kernel implementation is possible - yes please, of course.
> If only a complex, error-prone kernel implementation is possible,
> I would prefer to have the complexity in the thread library.
>
> That's better than having it in the kernel and (IMHO) better than having N
> implementation in various applications, especially since the applications
> don't necessarily know enough about the internals of the thread library
> and kernel interactions to get it right, much less efficient.
>
> That said, copying the linux_close.c workaround in the Java VM seems to
> solve my immediate problem, even if I think it's a bit ugly.  But I have
> confidence that you can do a better and cleaner solution :-)
>
>    -  Arne H. J.

Thread library only manages POSIX threads, it is nothing to do with how
user will use file. Sorry, I will not mess the thread library.

David Xu