[Openmcl-devel] process-run-function and mach ports usage
kpreid at switchb.org
Fri Feb 25 07:44:28 CST 2011
On Feb 24, 2011, at 22:40, Gary Byers wrote:
> I'm not sure that I understand the question.
> Ignoring the part about conflating reference and retention, do you
> it's appropriate for the kernel to increment the port's reference
> send a message, wait for a reply, and never decremement the
> reference count ?
> Unless the recipient of the message takes responsibility for
> releasing the
> reference, the reference count will just increase on every exception
> the port will never be deallocated, leading to the original problem.
Again, please note that I have no experience with Mach ports (merely
some thinking about resource management and communication among
I say that it is a reasonable design decision for the kernel to have a
*consistent* policy of "all objects which are arguments in messages
shall have their reference counts incremented", particularly so if
there are also messages for which there is no reply/end-of-handler-
execution (in which case, not incrementing leaves the kernel no
reliable information of when the object may be disposed of).
Kevin Reid <http://switchb.org/kpreid/>
More information about the Openmcl-devel