Re: troubles with caps

[Dave Leimbach <leimySPAM2k@xxxxxxx>]

Matthew Dillon <dillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> :> Ah, so that's what client.c is doing.  OK, well there's no good reason
> :> to share the connection; I just wanted to clarify that limitation.
> :> 
> :
> :Yeah... servers are one to many clients.  No two servers should have
> :the same name, though the current code allows it... Hiten has a patch
> :that seems to work though :).
> :
> :Dave
> 
>     That's on purpose.  There is a flag, CAPS_EXCL, that can be used to
>     disallow namespace overloading.  Namespace overloading is useful when
>     restarting a service because it allows the new service to register
>     its port before the old service is killed.  Clients then only see a
>     single interruption and can immediately (successfully) reconnect.
> 

Hmmm... I think that maybe there should be a flag to allow two 
services with the same name to co-exist rather than one to disallow it?  
EXCL is an obvious flag choice for the way things are now

I think having two with the same name is the more rare case and the way it is
sure confused me :).

Wouldn't the current situation be a race when calling caps_drop and caps_hold
to increment and decrement the reference counts?

Dave

> 					-Matt
> 					Matthew Dillon 
> 					<dillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>