Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 00:04:39 -0400 From: Barney Wolff <barney@databus.com> To: Jonathan Lemon <jlemon@flugsvamp.com> Cc: Jonathan Graehl <jonathan@graehl.org>, Freebsd-Net <freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG>, Jonathan Lemon <jlemon@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: please document that kevent does not automatically restart when interrupted by signals Message-ID: <20010405000438.A6087@mx.databus.com> In-Reply-To: <20010404211303.I70724@prism.flugsvamp.com>; from jlemon@flugsvamp.com on Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 09:13:03PM -0500 References: <NCBBLOALCKKINBNNEDDLEEKNDNAA.jonathan@graehl.org> <20010404211303.I70724@prism.flugsvamp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Are you sure that this will never be made untrue by a fine-grained smp implementation? Other than for popular-press benchmarks, asking what FreeBSD will guarantee is the wrong question, imho. Writing production code that's non-portable is hardly ever the right choice. Of course if you're using kevent you've already decided the other way. The manpages should document what is very unlikely to change across releases, but I don't think even that is an absolute commitment. Posix is a much safer bet. Barney Wolff, who has been asked about his own 15-year-old code, and is sure that others can beat that by a mile. On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 09:13:03PM -0500, Jonathan Lemon wrote: > > EINTR should (as far as I know) only be returned if a signal interrupts > the syscall when it was in the middle of a sleep. If you are doing > non-blocking I/O, then the system should not be sleeping, so EINTR should > never be returned. No, I don't think that this is explicitly laid out > anywhere in the manual pages, though. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010405000438.A6087>