[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2015 00:07:37 +0300 (MSK)
From: Alexander Monakov <amonakov@...ras.ru>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Resuming work on new semaphore
On Sun, 5 Apr 2015, Rich Felker wrote:
> So if cancellation was pending _before_ the call to sem_wait, then
> sem_wait has to honor it. But there is no requirement that entry to
> the sem_wait function be "atomic" with becoming a waiter on the
> semaphore, and of course this is impossible to satisfy or even
> specify.
Thanks!
One other thing to consider. In the absence of concurrent operations on the
semaphore, return value of sem_getvalue should be equal to the number of times
sem_trywait will indicate success when called repeatedly. So if the
implementation performs post-stealing in trywait, it should return the higher
bound as semaphore value. Likewise for timedwait.
Alexander
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
