On Wed, 2015-11-04 at 22:34 -0300, Diego Nieto Cid wrote:
>
> 2015-11-04 16:03 GMT-03:00 Svante Signell <svante.sign...@gmail.com>:
> > On Wed, 2015-11-04 at 18:57 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > > Diego Nieto Cid, on Wed 04 Nov 2015 10:50:35 -0300, wrote:
> > > > assert (__hurd_local_reply_port == arg || arg ==
> MACH_PORT_NULL)
> > > >
> > > > AIUI any other values are bogus given how 'mig_get_reply_port'
> and
> > > > 'mig_dealloc_reply_port' are meant to be paired.
> > >
> > > That's probably a good thing to do, yes.
> >
> > What's wrong with?
> > mach_port_t port = __hurd_local_reply_port;
> > assert (port == arg || arg == MACH_PORT_NULL)
> >
>
> That's ok. I just rewrote it to make clear what the accepted values
> were. Because the second patch incorporated an if statement that
> converted the suggested condition in a tautology.
I agree, the #if 1 part was not OK. What about rewriting
__mig_get_reply_port() too to be more readable?
Please tell me if this patch is faulty in some way, I'm still on the
learning curve.
Index: glibc-2.19/sysdeps/mach/hurd/mig-reply.c
===================================================================
--- glibc-2.19.orig/sysdeps/mach/hurd/mig-reply.c
+++ glibc-2.19/sysdeps/mach/hurd/mig-reply.c
@@ -26,12 +26,13 @@ mach_port_t __hurd_reply_port0;
mach_port_t
__mig_get_reply_port (void)
{
- if (__hurd_local_reply_port == MACH_PORT_NULL ||
- (&__hurd_local_reply_port != &__hurd_reply_port0
- && __hurd_local_reply_port == __hurd_reply_port0))
- __hurd_local_reply_port = __mach_reply_port ();
+ mach_port_t port = __hurd_local_reply_port;
+ if (port == MACH_PORT_NULL ||
+ (&__hurd_local_reply_port != &__hurd_reply_port0 &&
+ port == __hurd_reply_port0))
+ port = __mach_reply_port ();
- return __hurd_local_reply_port;
+ return port;
}
weak_alias (__mig_get_reply_port, mig_get_reply_port)
@@ -40,6 +41,7 @@ void
__mig_dealloc_reply_port (mach_port_t arg)
{
mach_port_t port = __hurd_local_reply_port;
+ assert (port == arg || arg == MACH_PORT_NULL);
__hurd_local_reply_port = MACH_PORT_NULL; /* So the mod_refs
RPC won't use it. */
if (MACH_PORT_VALID (port))
Samuel: Regarding your previous comment:
>> Additionally, any strong reason to not change mig??
>
> Having to deal with the introduced incompatibility.
Incompatibility with what, older versions of glibc/hurd/mach/mig, which
ones? How many users are there of GNU/Hurd, especially running old
releases? Maybe I can think of one: antrik, but he is capable enough to
cope with the changes.
