From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Dec 2 12:41:29 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA02138 for freebsd-hackers-outgoing; Wed, 2 Dec 1998 12:41:29 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from pcnet1.pcnet.com (pcnet1.pcnet.com [204.213.232.3]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA02129 for ; Wed, 2 Dec 1998 12:41:26 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from eischen@vigrid.com) Received: (from eischen@localhost) by pcnet1.pcnet.com (8.8.7/PCNet) id PAA00664; Wed, 2 Dec 1998 15:40:58 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 2 Dec 1998 15:40:58 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Eischen Message-Id: <199812022040.PAA00664@pcnet1.pcnet.com> To: eischen@vigrid.com, lists@tar.com Subject: Re: pthread_cancel() function... Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > Sure. That was what I thought I was proposing, except that > instead of SYSCALL_xxx it would be _xxx (eg. _read) since > that is how libc (not libc_r) is already setup. > > In the case of libc_r, you probably don't want to alias it > to _thread_sys_xxx, since you probably want the wrappers for > the blocking syscalls to be used in libc_r. If you rename > the uthread syscall wrappers from xxx to _xxx (eg. _read) > and then implement xxx as a wrapper of _xxx that implements > cancellation points, you'd be consistent. > > As far as I can tell, to implement cancellation > points, you have to wade through the libc code and make the > change as you suggest, for each call. Its not really "hard", > just a tedious pain in the you know what. That was really > my only point. OK, I guess we're in sync. I'll talk to you offline when I get back to cancellation. Dan Eischen eischen@vigrid.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message