From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Oct 4 08:09:08 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 906A5106564A; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 08:09:08 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mhenrion@gmail.com) Received: from mail-pz0-f44.google.com (mail-pz0-f44.google.com [209.85.210.44]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B3FD8FC13; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 08:09:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: by pzk32 with SMTP id 32so1512754pzk.3 for ; Tue, 04 Oct 2011 01:09:07 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=mZf073Nt8nCQS/Nr6wEeEmTQ5BHzqC8SrSF2XEsadmM=; b=VIHD7tLxS2H1kBIWKX6fYnT89+wAUSiaYVoU1MAVwe543pCGctXpielLRFTeiUw00W 7yTAmZCoVZAnUi7GEGrI7jZJNDDfUIptrS7YNAzkYEVrY2xXVMpWPd85u9Yv8xy7SPzi allB3OOeRat9WYeoWbPQoa57UOA4SW2Tm2nEM= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.68.36.166 with SMTP id r6mr7712685pbj.77.1317715747631; Tue, 04 Oct 2011 01:09:07 -0700 (PDT) Sender: mhenrion@gmail.com Received: by 10.142.201.10 with HTTP; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 01:09:07 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20110908221356.Horde.MFEsZ6Qd9PdOaSIEaid2X_A@avocado.salatschuessel.net> <4E692F87.5010708@sentex.net> <20110909073305.Horde.oi-EGaQd9PdOaaURAsTRVJk@avocado.salatschuessel.net> <4E6A076D.7040309@wintek.com> <20111003213024.GA42715@stack.nl> Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 10:09:07 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: rZXAXL5nbN-nWVUVLTZDbDtkq4w Message-ID: From: Maxime Henrion To: Adrian Chadd Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Alexander Zagrebin , Jilles Tjoelker Subject: Re: cvsup broken on amd64? X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2011 08:09:08 -0000 On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 2:19 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote: > On 4 October 2011 05:53, Maxime Henrion wrote: > >> Great, that's a relief. I knew the pthread library was free to wake a >> thread up even if it hadn't been signaled, which is why one always has >> to call pthread_cond_wait() inside of a while() loop checking for the >> condition, but wasn't sure about that particular scenario, so I'm glad >> to hear a confirmation. Thanks! > > So shall I commit your change, if someone hasn't already? That would be great (I cannot commit it myself anymore). If you could also fix the misleading comment I've been talking about (s/lister thread/detailer thread/), it would be perfect. Thanks, Maxime