diff options
author | Sverker Eriksson <[email protected]> | 2017-11-23 15:05:34 +0100 |
---|---|---|
committer | Sverker Eriksson <[email protected]> | 2017-11-23 15:05:34 +0100 |
commit | 8ed0d75c186d9da24bd6cfb85732487b17a3b054 (patch) | |
tree | f458c4ef6fc080fe9859834cabe3e49d40da9908 /erts/doc/src/erlang.xml | |
parent | a5aaba7c9a316327940d0b861dd300d59aa99209 (diff) | |
download | otp-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.xml | 33 |
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> |