Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2010 19:56:09 +0200 From: Jilles Tjoelker <jilles@stack.nl> To: David Xu <davidxu@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org Subject: Re: sigwait() cancellation point Message-ID: <20100908175609.GA30144@stack.nl> In-Reply-To: <4C86787E.6070908@freebsd.org> References: <20100906220041.GA4729@stack.nl> <4C86787E.6070908@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Sep 07, 2010 at 05:38:06PM +0000, David Xu wrote: > Jilles Tjoelker wrote: > > Our sigwait() implementation may not be POSIX-compliant as it returns > > EINTR when it is interrupted by a caught signal. (Unfortunately I can > > only find this in SUSv4 in the Rationale, B.2.3 Error Numbers, > > Disallowing Return of the [EINTR] Error Code; the sigwait() page in XSH > > does not list an [EINTR] error condition, but does not prohibit one > > either like pthread_mutex_lock() and various others do.) > A system call can not return EINTR is not flexible, I think why don't > we fix it in libc and libthr, but let kernel returns EINTR? > I have worked out a patch: > http://people.freebsd.org/~davidxu/patch/sigwait.diff The idea and patch seem sensible. Some man page changes seem in order though: sigwaitinfo.2 should mention this difference between sigwait() and sigwaitinfo() more explicitly. -- Jilles Tjoelker
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20100908175609.GA30144>