From owner-freebsd-current Sat Oct 17 19:21:26 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA21190 for freebsd-current-outgoing; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 19:21:26 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from spinner.netplex.com.au (spinner.netplex.com.au [202.12.86.3]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA21167 for ; Sat, 17 Oct 1998 19:21:15 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from peter@netplex.com.au) Received: from spinner.netplex.com.au (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spinner.netplex.com.au (8.9.1/8.9.1/Spinner) with ESMTP id KAA12204; Sun, 18 Oct 1998 10:20:16 +0800 (WST) (envelope-from peter@spinner.netplex.com.au) Message-Id: <199810180220.KAA12204@spinner.netplex.com.au> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0.2 2/24/98 To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" cc: Marc Slemko , current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: sleep() and Apache in release notes In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 17 Oct 1998 18:58:01 MST." <24750.908675881@time.cdrom.com> Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 10:20:14 +0800 From: Peter Wemm Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG "Jordan K. Hubbard" wrote: > > (don't know who wrote what part of the release notes, but...) > > I'm not really sure who wrote that (possibly Garrett, but I wouldn't > swear on it) but I'm sorry for the unfortunate choice of words. I > should have proof-read the release notes more carefully - mea culpa! > > I don't think that any intentional slight was meant by it, just an > off-the-cuff comment in engineer-speak that problably shouldn't have > gone into the public docs. Once we figure out who added it (I'm on a > slow link at the moment or I'd inspect the CVS logs), we can determine > just what was meant by it. Earlier on, it was a real problem because httpd was depending on alarm() to wake up a sleep and depending on the SIGALRM handler not being called. This was quite some time ago, my memory isn't all that good from back then. I have a feeling that it was from the 1.1 or 1.2 beta releases. I am sure it is no longer the case because the syscall that was originally added to implement these semantics has since been removed. signanosleep(2) is gone and sleep/usleep use normal nanosleep(2), so this note is out of date even. > - Jordan > > > > > It is somewhat disappointing to see: > > > > o sleep(3) and usleep(3) are now implemented in terms of signanosleep(2) > > and now have correct SIGALRM interaction semantics and sleep(3) correctly > > returns the time remaining. Some programs (notably apache httpd) bogusly > > depend on a sleep() "absorbing" a SIGALRM from a timer that expires durin g > > the life of the sleep. > > > > in RELNOTES.TXT considering I have no idea where the bug in Apache that is > > claiming would be and there have been no bug report or attempt to get this > > fixed in Apache other than sticking lines in the release notes saying > > "Apache is broken". > > > > If there is a problem in Apache, please point it out so it can be fixed. > > > > -- > > Marc Slemko | Apache Group member > > marcs@znep.com | marc@apache.org Cheers, -Peter To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message