Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2015 00:07:37 +0300 (MSK)
From: Alexander Monakov <>
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.


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.


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.