aboutsummaryrefslogtreecommitdiffstats
path: root/erts/doc/src/erlang.xml
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorSverker Eriksson <[email protected]>2017-11-23 15:05:34 +0100
committerSverker Eriksson <[email protected]>2017-11-23 15:05:34 +0100
commit8ed0d75c186d9da24bd6cfb85732487b17a3b054 (patch)
treef458c4ef6fc080fe9859834cabe3e49d40da9908 /erts/doc/src/erlang.xml
parenta5aaba7c9a316327940d0b861dd300d59aa99209 (diff)
downloadotp-8ed0d75c186d9da24bd6cfb85732487b17a3b054.tar.gz
otp-8ed0d75c186d9da24bd6cfb85732487b17a3b054.tar.bz2
otp-8ed0d75c186d9da24bd6cfb85732487b17a3b054.zip
erts: Fix erlang:monitor toward c-nodes
by suppressing DOP_MONITOR_P, DOP_MONITOR_P_EXIT and DOP_DEMONITOR_P if not supported by the remote node. In 17e198d6ee60f7dec9abfed272cf4226aea44535 I changed the behavior of erlang:monitor to not raise badarg for c-nodes but instead create a monitor to only supervise the connection. But I forgot to prevent DOP_MONITOR_P and friends from being sent to the node that does not expect them. Note: We test both DFLAG_DIST_MONITOR and DFLAG_DIST_MONITOR_NAME for the node to support process monitoring. This is because erl_interface is buggy as it sets DFLAG_DIST_MONITOR without really supporting it. ToDo: Should erl_interface stop setting DFLAG_DIST_MONITOR or should we change the meaning of these flags?
Diffstat (limited to 'erts/doc/src/erlang.xml')
-rw-r--r--erts/doc/src/erlang.xml33
1 files changed, 13 insertions, 20 deletions
diff --git a/erts/doc/src/erlang.xml b/erts/doc/src/erlang.xml
index 3b7b9d6a50..d78e75a91d 100644
--- a/erts/doc/src/erlang.xml
+++ b/erts/doc/src/erlang.xml
@@ -3358,25 +3358,6 @@ RealSystem = system + MissedSystem</code>
monitored process resides). </p></item>
</taglist>
- <p>If an attempt is made to monitor a process on an older node
- (where remote process monitoring is not implemented or
- where remote process monitoring by registered name is not
- implemented), the call fails with <c>badarg</c>.</p>
- <note>
- <p>The format of the <c>'DOWN'</c> message changed in ERTS
- 5.2 (Erlang/OTP R9B) for monitoring
- <em>by registered name</em>. Element <c>Object</c> of
- the <c>'DOWN'</c> message could in earlier versions
- sometimes be the process identifier of the monitored process and sometimes
- be the registered name. Now element <c>Object</c> is
- always a tuple consisting of the registered name and
- the node name. Processes on new nodes (ERTS 5.2
- or higher versions) always get <c>'DOWN'</c> messages on
- the new format even if they are monitoring processes on old
- nodes. Processes on old nodes always get <c>'DOWN'</c>
- messages on the old format.</p>
- </note>
-
<taglist>
<tag>Monitoring a <marker id="monitor_process"/><c>process</c></tag>
<item>
@@ -3384,7 +3365,19 @@ RealSystem = system + MissedSystem</code>
process identified by <c><anno>Item</anno></c>, which can be a
<c>pid()</c> (local or remote), an atom <c>RegisteredName</c> or
a tuple <c>{RegisteredName, Node}</c> for a registered process,
- located elsewhere.</p>
+ located elsewhere.</p>
+
+ <note><p>Before ERTS 10.0 (OTP 21.0), monitoring a process could fail with
+ <c>badarg</c> if the monitored process resided on a primitive node
+ (such as erl_interface or jinterface), where remote process monitoring
+ is not implemented.</p>
+ <p>Now, such a call to <c>monitor</c> will instead succeed and a
+ monitor is created. But the monitor will only supervise the
+ connection. That is, a <c>{'DOWN', _, process, _, noconnection}</c> is
+ the only message that may be received, as the primitive node have no
+ way of reporting the status of the monitored process.</p>
+ </note>
+
</item>
<tag>Monitoring a <marker id="monitor_port"/><c>port</c></tag>