[haiku-appserver] Re: deadlock
- From: Adi Oanca <adioanca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: haiku-appserver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 11:28:40 +0300
Hi,
Stefano Ceccherini wrote:
>> That's what I love about this team!!! When I get short >of ideas, or
>>when I'm in trouble there is _always_ someone to come with a >nice
>>solution! :-) Thanks JB.
>
> Thanks but it is just what beos does, it isn't an original idea of mine :)
Don't care. You're the one who investigated and solved this problem. :-)
>> You are right, this solution is _much_ smoother than >what we currently
>>have in the tree. This means, some things must be changed in
>>BApplication so that when sending something to the server a
>>_BAppServerLink_ object should be created instead of locking >the looper.
>
>
> Actually, we already use BAppServerLink in BApplication and in the
> various classes (BCursor, etc.) to handle communication.
I know. And it's good it's in BPrivate namespace.
> So I think we have just to change a bit the implementation of BAppServerLink:
> instead of locking be_app, it has to acquire its own (static) lock.
> Does this sound right ? Am I missing something ? Stephan ? Darkwyrm ? Axel ?
> :)
Yes, it does. I had a quick look in BApplication and found only one
place where a change is needed: BApplication's destructor.
I also had a look at BAppServerLink and saw that for each instance it
looks the looper and creates a second reply port. That be_app->Lock() should
disappear and instead of creating a reply port, BApplication's reply port
should be used. Of course let's not forget about that static lock.
In all, this is what I propose:
BAppServerLink::BAppServerLink(void)
: BPortLink()
{
if (be_app)
{
mainServerLock->Lock();
SetSendPort(be_app->fServerFrom);
SetReplyPort(be_app->fServerTo);
}
}
BAppServerLink::~BAppServerLink()
{
if (be_app)
mainServerLock->Unlock();
}
status_t BAppServerLink::FlushWithReply(int32 *code)
{
status_t err;
- err = Attach<port_id>(receiver);
- if (err < B_OK)
- return err;
err = Flush();
if (err < B_OK)
return err;
return GetNextReply(code);
}
Unfortunately some code inside app_server must be changed. That second
reply port was attached to the message.
bye,
Adi.
Other related posts:
