[illumos-Developer] webrev for 1108

[Garrett D'Amore]

On Sun, 2011-06-12 at 22:36 -0700, Richard Elling wrote:
> LGTM, but...
> 
> On Jun 12, 2011, at 10:01 PM, Dan Kruchinin wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 7:43 AM, Richard Lowe <richlowe at richlowe.net> wrote:
> >> I would expect the XXX comments regarding EBUSY to be resolved in one
> >> direction or another (either set the error, or remove the comment,
> >> whichever is correct).
> > 
> > I'm not sure that an answer on the question what error code should be
> > set if endpoint is closing can be found fast.
> > There definitely must be the code reporting an error, but we need to
> > choose the error code STREAMS familiar with. (i.e. it should
> > know how to deal with it).
> > 
> > Probably it's better to remove the comment and open new issue
> > describing the problem in both ser
> > functions after the code is committed.
> 
> I'm ok with a TODO comment. However the proposed comment does not give
> much information to make a later decision. I'd much rather see information on why
> the issue is not resolved at this time and where other parts might be impacted.
> I do not think that referring to another bugid is sufficient, as Oracle has demonstrated
> that bugids are not necessarily part of permanent project memory. Or, to put it another 
> way, don't make me search for the conflict to discover an possible answer.
>  -- richard
> 
> 
> > By the way, we discussed this code with Dan McDonald in IRC,
> > he suggested to add comment only to the new code. Is it ok?


I normally agree with what Richard said.  However, if the stream is
closing, then normally messages sent down stream are simply tossed.
This is part of the STREAMS "protocol".  The consumer should not close
the stream while it is expecting replies to messages.

The STREAM head should actually time out these requests rather than
handling them here.  In fact, if the stream is closing, you might have
no way to report an error back to the application because you have no
user context and the stream head will not be passing any further
messages back up to the application.

So, just freemsg() is probably the right course of action here.

	- Garrett
> > 
> >> 
> >> -- Rich
> >> 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > W.B.R.
> > Dan Kruchinin
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Developer mailing list
> > Developer at lists.illumos.org
> > http://lists.illumos.org/m/listinfo/developer
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Developer mailing list
> Developer at lists.illumos.org
> http://lists.illumos.org/m/listinfo/developer