See >>s inline -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Markus Rehbach Sent: Monday, September 08, 2003 1:20 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Ntop-dev] **ERROR** accessMutex() called 'scanIdleLoop' with an UN-INITIALIZED mutex [EMAIL PROTECTED]:487]
On Monday 08 September 2003 12:40, Burton M. Strauss III wrote: > The only thing I've asked you not to report is spurious messages after you > kill ntop. And that's the only report(s) that we're discussing here. Ok, understood and will never do it again. > The reason for not bothering is simply because - when you use a blunt force > kill, vs. the programmed shutdown - there's no way to prevent problems - > it's inherent in the POSIX threading model. .... > The fallout is that there are some protective messages generated based on > conditions which - during a normal run - would be indicative of a problem. Is included in a 'normal run' the programmed shutdown via the web interface? And is it worth reporting if a thread wil remain using the web-shutdown? >>Yes, some of it's solvable, others isn't but unless we know about it, we can't make that determination. Why I'm asking is because in the described case, where ntop stops adding hosts the messages are there during the web-shutdown, too. >>Try using the fixed version first, before reporting it again. And please use the PR form... Btw, the version seems to be quite stable on my systems, too. And the trash traffic generated by tcpsic isn't existing in real life. Good work. Regards Markus _______________________________________________ Ntop-dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://listgateway.unipi.it/mailman/listinfo/ntop-dev _______________________________________________ Ntop-dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://listgateway.unipi.it/mailman/listinfo/ntop-dev
