Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*DMAPI\s+implementation\s+about\s+undeliverable\s+event\s+messages\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*DMAPI\s+implementation\s+about\s+undeliverable\s+event\s+messages\s*$/: 18 ]

Total 18 documents matching your query.

1. DMAPI implementation about undeliverable event messages (score: 1): Author: Aurelien Degremont - Stagiaire <degremont@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2005 10:03:46 +0100; I just wanted to know how the SGI DMAPI implementation reacts when it must throw a synchronous event message when no process exists to receive it (but was registered before, no longer available know; /archives/xfs/2005-03/msg00011.html (8,757 bytes)
2. Re: DMAPI implementation about undeliverable event messages (score: 1): Author: Dean Roehrich <roehrich@xxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2005 09:48:38 -0600; These are often blocked, but interruptible. Otherwise they're stuck until the HSM application is restarted so it can continue processing events. Dean; /archives/xfs/2005-03/msg00012.html (8,743 bytes)
3. Re: DMAPI implementation about undeliverable event messages (score: 1): Author: Aurelien Degremont - Stagiaire <degremont@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2005 17:08:26 +0100; Dean Roehrich a écrit : These are often blocked, but interruptible. Otherwise they're stuck until the HSM application is restarted so it can continue processing events. Yes, i saw this, no other so; /archives/xfs/2005-03/msg00013.html (9,742 bytes)
4. Re: DMAPI implementation about undeliverable event messages (score: 1): Author: Dean Roehrich <roehrich@xxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2005 10:45:29 -0600; Yes. There's a comment header for dm_send_unmount_event() that talks about some issues with this being a synchronous event. The spec still says it is synchronous: http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs; /archives/xfs/2005-03/msg00014.html (9,552 bytes)
5. Re: DMAPI implementation about undeliverable event messages (score: 1): Author: Damian Hazen <dhazen@xxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2005 11:58:17 -0800; Aurelien Degremont - Stagiaire wrote: Dean Roehrich a écrit : These are often blocked, but interruptible. Otherwise they're stuck until the HSM application is restarted so it can continue processin; /archives/xfs/2005-03/msg00015.html (10,493 bytes)
6. Re: DMAPI implementation about undeliverable event messages (score: 1): Author: Aurelien Degremont - Stagiaire <degremont@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2005 15:18:09 +0100; Damian Hazen a écrit : If your goal is just to clear out the pending unmount event so that umount completes, you can write a utility that gets the sessions, gets the tokens, and then responds conti; /archives/xfs/2005-03/msg00021.html (10,258 bytes)
7. Re: DMAPI implementation about undeliverable event messages (score: 1): Author: Aurelien Degremont - Stagiaire <degremont@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2005 15:25:45 +0100; Dean Roehrich a écrit : There's a comment header for dm_send_unmount_event() that talks about some issues with this being a synchronous event. The spec still says it is synchronous: http://www.open; /archives/xfs/2005-03/msg00022.html (9,385 bytes)
8. Re: DMAPI implementation about undeliverable event messages (score: 1): Author: Dean Roehrich <roehrich@xxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2005 11:38:02 -0600; Well, let's back up. Why is your HSM application not present? Why did it destroy its sessions, but not unregister the events it had put on the filesystem? Dean; /archives/xfs/2005-03/msg00024.html (9,088 bytes)
9. Re: DMAPI implementation about undeliverable event messages (score: 1): Author: Aurelien Degremont - Stagiaire <degremont@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 15:51:26 +0100; Dean Roehrich a écrit : Well, let's back up. Why is your HSM application not present? Why did it destroy its sessions, but not unregister the events it had put on the filesystem? Yes, I agree this; /archives/xfs/2005-03/msg00061.html (9,764 bytes)
10. n calling dm_set_disp() (score: 1): Author: n <dhazen@xxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2005 10:03:46 +0100; I just wanted to know how the SGI DMAPI implementation reacts when it must throw a synchronous event message when no process exists to receive it (but was registered before, no longer available know; /archives/xfs/2005-03/msg00217.html (8,757 bytes)
11. iverable event messages (score: 1): Author: emont@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2005 09:48:38 -0600; These are often blocked, but interruptible. Otherwise they're stuck until the HSM application is restarted so it can continue processing events. Dean; /archives/xfs/2005-03/msg00218.html (8,743 bytes)
12. iverable event messages (score: 1): Author: <roehrich@xxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2005 17:08:26 +0100; Dean Roehrich a écrit : These are often blocked, but interruptible. Otherwise they're stuck until the HSM application is restarted so it can continue processing events. Yes, i saw this, no other so; /archives/xfs/2005-03/msg00219.html (9,742 bytes)
13. iverable event messages (score: 1): Author: emont@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2005 10:45:29 -0600; Yes. There's a comment header for dm_send_unmount_event() that talks about some issues with this being a synchronous event. The spec still says it is synchronous: http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs; /archives/xfs/2005-03/msg00220.html (9,552 bytes)
14. iverable event messages (score: 1): Author: <roehrich@xxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2005 11:58:17 -0800; Aurelien Degremont - Stagiaire wrote: Dean Roehrich a écrit : These are often blocked, but interruptible. Otherwise they're stuck until the HSM application is restarted so it can continue processin; /archives/xfs/2005-03/msg00221.html (10,493 bytes)
15. n calling dm_set_disp() (score: 1): Author: n <dhazen@xxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2005 15:18:09 +0100; Damian Hazen a écrit : If your goal is just to clear out the pending unmount event so that umount completes, you can write a utility that gets the sessions, gets the tokens, and then responds conti; /archives/xfs/2005-03/msg00227.html (10,258 bytes)
16. iverable event messages (score: 1): Author: emont@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2005 15:25:45 +0100; Dean Roehrich a écrit : There's a comment header for dm_send_unmount_event() that talks about some issues with this being a synchronous event. The spec still says it is synchronous: http://www.open; /archives/xfs/2005-03/msg00228.html (9,385 bytes)
17. n calling dm_set_disp() (score: 1): Author: <roehrich@xxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2005 11:38:02 -0600; Well, let's back up. Why is your HSM application not present? Why did it destroy its sessions, but not unregister the events it had put on the filesystem? Dean; /archives/xfs/2005-03/msg00230.html (9,088 bytes)
18. t -o sync (XFS, 2.6.11) (score: 1): Author: <yjf@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 15:51:26 +0100; Dean Roehrich a écrit : Well, let's back up. Why is your HSM application not present? Why did it destroy its sessions, but not unregister the events it had put on the filesystem? Yes, I agree this; /archives/xfs/2005-03/msg00267.html (9,764 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 18
Page: [1]