Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2018 10:45:13 +0100 From: Markus Wichmann <nullplan@....net> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: sem_wait and EINTR On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 02:45:16PM -0500, Rich Felker wrote: > Perhaps help was the wrong word; I think you're right that there's > nowhere else it matters and that all other callers already ignore > EINTR unconditionally because they're supposed to. The only plausible > improvement is avoiding spurious dec/inc cycle on the waiter count in > some places. On the other hand it might be a nicer factorization (less > ugly and linux-bug-specific logic in high level code, i.e. > sem_timedwait) if the workaround were buried in low-level stuff > (__timedwait). > > [...] > > I don't see how it could hurt conformance. > > Rich I was misunderstanding you. I thought you were about to put the maybe-retry on EINTR into __timedwait() and then remove the corresponding check from all the users of __timedwait(). But apparently you want leave the users relatively unmolested. Yeah, that sounds better than what I pictured. Go right ahead, I say. Ciao, Markus
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.