From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG  Sat Jun 12 19:32:05 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59DD816A4CE
	for <freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>; Sat, 12 Jun 2004 19:32:05 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.watson.org [204.156.12.50])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1378843D4C
	for <freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>; Sat, 12 Jun 2004 19:32:05 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from robert@fledge.watson.org)
Received: from fledge.watson.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by fledge.watson.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5CJUeQp094867;
	Sat, 12 Jun 2004 15:30:40 -0400 (EDT)
	(envelope-from robert@fledge.watson.org)
Received: from localhost (robert@localhost)i5CJUeLc094864;
	Sat, 12 Jun 2004 15:30:40 -0400 (EDT)
	(envelope-from robert@fledge.watson.org)
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 15:30:40 -0400 (EDT)
From: Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org>
X-Sender: robert@fledge.watson.org
To: John Polstra <jdp@polstra.com>
In-Reply-To: <XFMail.20040612121521.jdp@polstra.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1040612153013.90086H-100000@fledge.watson.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: RFC: API change for sema_timedwait
X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture
	<freebsd-arch.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 19:32:05 -0000


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