Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 21:02:13 -0500 From: "Brian F. Feldman" <green@FreeBSD.org> To: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com> Cc: current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Testers wanted: reentrant resolver Message-ID: <200402210202.i1L22D7K035367@green.homeunix.org> In-Reply-To: Message from Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com> <Pine.GSO.4.10.10402202024001.28130-100000@pcnet5.pcnet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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. \,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,\
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200402210202.i1L22D7K035367>