>Exactly, I have just found out that and posted actually a long mail just
>before getting this mail from you :o)
>
>Yep, and before getting blocked, read() increments the counter as well, that's
>why we don't have a xnpipe_realease() called as a result of close().
>So everything is correct.
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 18.11.2005 09:57:15:
>
> >Exactly, I have just found out that and posted actually a long mail just
> >before getting this mail from you :o)
> >
> >Yep, and before getting blocked, read() increments the counter as
> well, that's
> >why we don't have a xnpipe_realease
>Exactly, I have just found out that and posted actually a long mail just
>before getting this mail from you :o)
>
>Yep, and before getting blocked, read() increments the counter as well, that's
>why we don't have a xnpipe_realease() called as a result of close().
>So everything is correct.
>
On Thursday 17 November 2005 20:17, you wrote:
> Dmitry Adamushko wrote:
> > On Thursday 17 November 2005 18:24, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> > > Dmitry Adamushko wrote:
> > > > > >As a conclusion, the behaviour that you observed with Xenomai
> > > > > >pipes seems consistent with that of Li
On Thursday 17 November 2005 18:24, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> Dmitry Adamushko wrote:
> > > >As a conclusion, the behaviour that you observed with Xenomai
> > > >pipes seems consistent with that of Linux' named pipes, except
> > > >that in Linux read() returns 0, and not an error code as you
Dmitry Adamushko wrote:
> On Thursday 17 November 2005 18:24, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> > Dmitry Adamushko wrote:
> > > > >As a conclusion, the behaviour that you observed with Xenomai
> > > > >pipes seems consistent with that of Linux' named pipes, except
> > > > >that in Linux read()
On Thursday 17 November 2005 18:24, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> Dmitry Adamushko wrote:
> > > >As a conclusion, the behaviour that you observed with Xenomai
> > > >pipes seems consistent with that of Linux' named pipes, except
> > > >that in Linux read() returns 0, and not an error code as you
On Thursday 17 November 2005 20:17, you wrote:
> Dmitry Adamushko wrote:
> > On Thursday 17 November 2005 18:24, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> > > Dmitry Adamushko wrote:
> > > > > >As a conclusion, the behaviour that you observed with Xenomai
> > > > > >pipes seems consistent with that of Li
On Thursday 17 November 2005 18:24, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> Dmitry Adamushko wrote:
> > > >As a conclusion, the behaviour that you observed with Xenomai
> > > >pipes seems consistent with that of Linux' named pipes, except
> > > >that in Linux read() returns 0, and not an error code as you
Dmitry Adamushko wrote:
> On Thursday 17 November 2005 18:24, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> > Dmitry Adamushko wrote:
> > > > >As a conclusion, the behaviour that you observed with Xenomai
> > > > >pipes seems consistent with that of Linux' named pipes, except
> > > > >that in Linux read()
On Thursday 17 November 2005 18:24, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> Dmitry Adamushko wrote:
> > > >As a conclusion, the behaviour that you observed with Xenomai
> > > >pipes seems consistent with that of Linux' named pipes, except
> > > >that in Linux read() returns 0, and not an error code as you
11 matches
Mail list logo
