* Terry Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020220 11:13] wrote:
> Mark Santcroos wrote:
>
> > I managed to create a simple linux program that had the same problem. From
> > there on it was easy...
> >
> > The problem was created by Alfred's locking commit of Jan 13.
> > (No hard feelings, it helped me
Mark Santcroos wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 16, 2002 at 01:02:09AM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
> > Pretty clearly, if it happens, and the process is truly
> > gone, then there is a resource track cleanup that's
> > missing (perhaps it's a reference that results from the
> > Linux mmap resource track clean
* Mark Santcroos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020220 03:52] wrote:
>
> It was indeed a linux_compat specific resource cleanup issue.
>
> I managed to create a simple linux program that had the same problem. From
> there on it was easy...
>
> The problem was created by Alfred's locking commit of Jan 13
On Sat, Feb 16, 2002 at 01:02:09AM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
> Pretty clearly, if it happens, and the process is truly
> gone, then there is a resource track cleanup that's
> missing (perhaps it's a reference that results from the
> Linux mmap resource track cleanup not releasing it?).
It was i
On Fri, Feb 15, 2002 at 07:35:39PM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
> > > Maybe it's losing an open instance in the resource
> > > track on close? That seems the most likely culprit...
> >
> > Do you mean in the linux emu case?
> > If so, please see my message stating that I also used a linux emu pro
Brooks Davis wrote:
> I think there's something else going on. You can hold open a vmnet
> device by the simple expedient of "cat /dev/vmnet0" and when I tested
> with a Linux cat and killed it with a "kill -9" it closed the descriptor
> properly. Some things I haven't tried, but though might ha
On Fri, Feb 15, 2002 at 07:35:39PM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
> I saw your message. It wasn't clear to me that you were
> simply exiting in the test, instead of actually closing
> the descriptor. I suspect that vmware just exits, and
> expects a resource tracking close on exit to free the
> ref
Mark Santcroos wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 04:59:41PM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
> > > There's one difference between vmware and a little hacked up test app.
> > > Linux emulation. It certaintly shouldn't matter, but it might be worth
> > > compiling the test program on a linux machine and
Hi Terry,
On Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 04:59:41PM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
> > There's one difference between vmware and a little hacked up test app.
> > Linux emulation. It certaintly shouldn't matter, but it might be worth
> > compiling the test program on a linux machine and seeing it it leaves
Brooks Davis wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 11:13:58AM -0800, whoever wrote:
> > how come it gets lost in the vmware case and not in your simple app.
> > also does ifconfig report that the vmnet device is opened by the pid
> > of your app between open and close of the simple app?
>
> There's on
On Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 11:32:06AM -0800, whoever wrote:
> > There's one difference between vmware and a little hacked up test app.
> > Linux emulation. It certaintly shouldn't matter, but it might be worth
> > compiling the test program on a linux machine and seeing it it leaves
> > the device i
On Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 11:19:37AM -0800, Brooks Davis wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 11:13:58AM -0800, whoever wrote:
> >
> > how come it gets lost in the vmware case and not in your simple app.
> > also does ifconfig report that the vmnet device is opened by the pid
> > of your app between op
On Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 11:13:58AM -0800, whoever wrote:
>
> how come it gets lost in the vmware case and not in your simple app.
> also does ifconfig report that the vmnet device is opened by the pid
> of your app between open and close of the simple app?
There's one difference between vmware a
FROM: Mark SantcroosDATE: 02/12/2002 02:58:30SUBJECT: RE: Ethernet tunnel device On
Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 12:14:32PM -0800, Brooks Davis wrote:
|> It sounds like there's some sort of a bug in the close code. You are
|> sure the previous instance is really gone, right? If it
On Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 12:14:32PM -0800, Brooks Davis wrote:
> It sounds like there's some sort of a bug in the close code. You are
> sure the previous instance is really gone, right? If it is, that's
> another issue.
The tapclose() function is not called at all in this case. (I've put some
de
On Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 03:23:36AM -0800, whoever wrote:
> I am running FreeBSD current and barely got vmware
> working on it.
> Now I have another problem which I cant resolve.
> If I close down the vmware program and restart I get an
> error that vmnet(1,2,3,0 whatever) device is busy
> and c
--lrZ03NoBR/3+SXJZ
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 03:23:36AM -0800, whoever wrote:
> clearly the device is opened by the previous=20
> instance of the program and is not closed.=20
> delet
17 matches
Mail list logo
