Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 15:30:15 +0100 From: Marc Olzheim <marcolz@stack.nl> To: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com> Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: libc_r/uthread/uthread_join.c Message-ID: <20031231143015.GA59104@stack.nl> In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10312310911360.3264-100000@pcnet5.pcnet.com> References: <20031231140533.GA56158@stack.nl> <Pine.GSO.4.10.10312310911360.3264-100000@pcnet5.pcnet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Dec 31, 2003 at 09:22:14AM -0500, Daniel Eischen wrote: > > Hmm, ok ;-) But then why is _thread_kern_sig_undefer() called within > > every if-case, instead of just below the if ? It looked like it was > > contructed this way to be able to omit _thread_kern_sig_undefer() in > > that specific case... ;-) > > Look at revision 1.16 of uthread_join. Revision 1.17 removed the > _thread_kern_sig_[un]defer()'s and revision 1.18 put them back in > but left an undefer. So I noticed. But it seems to me as if the undefers could be removed from within the if-else-blocks and collapsed into a single undefer just beneath the if-else-blocks, right before the _thread_leave_cancellation_point(); Zlo
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20031231143015.GA59104>