From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Jan 21 14:50:32 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA05118 for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jan 1998 14:50:32 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from narnia.plutotech.com (narnia.plutotech.com [206.168.67.130]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA05108 for ; Wed, 21 Jan 1998 14:50:28 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from gibbs@narnia.plutotech.com) Received: (from gibbs@localhost) by narnia.plutotech.com (8.8.8/8.7.3) id PAA08995; Wed, 21 Jan 1998 15:47:41 -0700 (MST) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 15:47:41 -0700 (MST) From: "Justin T. Gibbs" Message-Id: <199801212247.PAA08995@narnia.plutotech.com> To: "Daniel C. Sobral" cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Timeout(9) Newsgroups: pluto.freebsd.hackers In-Reply-To: <199801212104.TAA00624@daniel.sobral> User-Agent: tin/pre-1.4-971204 (UNIX) (FreeBSD/3.0-CURRENT (i386)) Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk In article <199801212104.TAA00624@daniel.sobral> you wrote: > After given a careful read of the man page, I was left with a doubt. > When it is stated that timeout() is protected from reentrancy, does > that means no other timed out function will be called, or that the > _same_ function won't be called twice? No timeout handler will be entered while you are in a timeout handler. These semantics might be relaxed to only prevent per handler re-entrancy in some future SMP release though. > -- > Daniel C. Sobral (8-DCS) > dcs@gns.com.br > > For those who like this sort of thing, this is the sort of thing they like. > -- Abraham Lincoln -- Justin