 |
 |
Hi Elvin, Well, nothing prohibits a kXR_attn from sending a kXR_waitresp. Of course, that would be a silly thing to do and we could just say it’s not allowed in the documentation and if it does happen declare an error. I left the dead code in there because I could not guarantee it wouldn’t be triggered at some point in the future (I guess that was good because of the problem you point out). Anyway, what do you think – prohibit attn+waitresp? Andy From: Elvin Sindrilaru Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2015 6:27 AM To: xrootd/xrootd Cc: Andrew Hanushevsky Subject: Re: [xrootd] XrdOfsTPCAuth deadlock (#290) Hi Andy, After looking over the code, I get you point related to the Ignore flag but this also means that this branch of the switch is dead code: https://github.com/xrootd/xrootd/blob/master/src/XrdCl/XrdClXRootDMsgHandler.cc#L560 Since such a response as you said in the comments is handled synchronously here: https://github.com/xrootd/xrootd/blob/master/src/XrdCl/XrdClStream.cc#L449 All this is true if a kXR_attn response can not contain an embedded kXR_waitreps. Can it? If not, what do you think about removing the dead case branch? Elvin — Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub. --- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/xrootd/xrootd/issues/290#issuecomment-146008061 ######################################################################## Use REPLY-ALL to reply to list To unsubscribe from the XROOTD-DEV list, click the following link: https://listserv.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=XROOTD-DEV&A=1