lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Jan]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: state terminology
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 10:58:48 +0100, Ingo Oeser wrote:

> Hi Jan,
>
> On Saturday 14 January 2006 22:34, you wrote:
> > Is there a specific term (other than "hang") associated with this
> > situation? It's not a "dead-lock", because there is no other process
> > (anymore) which could potentially up the semaphore.
>
> This is a simple "resource leak" (or "semaphore leak" in this case).
>
> Explanation follows:
>
> The resource semaphore is not usable by anyone anymore
> and is still around.
>
> Its pretty much the same as a memory leak. There is no one, who
> could free the memory anymore.
>
> The reasons for the resource not being usable anymore is
> not significant for a resource leak.
>
> Also insignificant is the fact that the amount of semaphores
> are just limited by available memory. If you repeat starting threads
> doing the semaphore leak game from your example, you'll run out
> of memory and thus out of semaphores. This is another sign of leakage.
>
> Do the above explanations sound ok?

But it's the functionality rather than the resource that's being lost.
So I wouldn't consider it to be a leak.

How about "locked-out" or "lock-out"? It's akin to a locked room, with
the keys left inside.

-Paul

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-01-15 21:03    [W:0.047 / U:0.384 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site