[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181215094513.GB3315@voyager>
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.
