Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 15:30:40 -0400 (EDT) From: Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org> To: John Polstra <jdp@polstra.com> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: RFC: API change for sema_timedwait Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1040612153013.90086H-100000@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <XFMail.20040612121521.jdp@polstra.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 12 Jun 2004, John Polstra wrote: > The reason I care about this is because I'd like to add new functions > sema_wait_sig() and sema_timedwait_sig() which can be interrupted by a > signal. Then sema_timedwait_sig could fail in two different ways: as a > result of a timeout or as a result of a signal. If these functions > returned proper errno values on failure, it would be easy to distinguish > between the two failure cases. > > This change would also make the return values of sema_timedwait, > sema_wait_sig, and sema_timedwait_sig consistent with the analogous > condition variable operations cv_timedwait, cv_wait_sig, and > cv_timedwait_sig and with tsleep and msleep. > > Does this change sound OK to you folks? This sounds entirely sensible to me. Make sure to update the man page :-). Robert N M Watson FreeBSD Core Team, TrustedBSD Projects robert@fledge.watson.org Senior Research Scientist, McAfee Research
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.NEB.3.96L.1040612153013.90086H-100000>