This is the mail archive of the
xconq7@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the Xconq project.
Re: find_next_occupant vs. autonext_unit
- To: Jim Kingdon <kingdon at panix dot com>
- Subject: Re: find_next_occupant vs. autonext_unit
- From: Hans Ronne <hronne at pp dot sbbs dot se>
- Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 20:33:09 +0100
- Cc: xconq7 at sources dot redhat dot com
- References: <l03130301b61105fa0782@[212.112.4.26]> (message from HansRonne on Mon, 16 Oct 2000 20:23:53 +0100)<l03130301b61105fa0782@[212.112.4.26]>
>> Never seen this happen in the mac interface, but it uses
>> find_next_awake_mover instead of autonext_unit.
>
>Am I misreading the mac code? Seems like maybe_select_next_unit in
>macconq.c will call autonext_unit first and only then
>find_next_awake_mover.
Both interfaces call autonext_unit_inbox first, which is not the same thing
as autonext_unit. The unix code then goes on to call autonext_unit, while
the mac code calls find_next_awake_mover instead.
I understood the problem was with autonext_unit, but if it is
autonext_unit_inbox that is the culprit, you would of course expect the two
interfaces to behave the same.
Hans
Hans Ronne
hronne@pp.sbbs.se