From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Nov 9 13:42:32 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from fw.wintelcom.net (ns1.wintelcom.net [209.1.153.20]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D5CE37B479 for ; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 13:42:29 -0800 (PST) Received: (from bright@localhost) by fw.wintelcom.net (8.10.0/8.10.0) id eA9LgRa06784; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 13:42:27 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 13:42:27 -0800 From: Alfred Perlstein To: Bjorn Tornqvist Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Modifying msgrcv() and msgsnd() Message-ID: <20001109134226.C5112@fw.wintelcom.net> References: <3A0AC4FB.DEE94ED9@west.se> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.4i In-Reply-To: <3A0AC4FB.DEE94ED9@west.se>; from bjorn.tornqvist@west.se on Thu, Nov 09, 2000 at 04:38:35PM +0100 Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG * Bjorn Tornqvist [001109 13:38] wrote: > > Hi! > > I'm going to add 2 functioncalls to the kernel; msgrcv_t() msgsnd_t() > ("t" > as in timeout) where the user will be able to specify a maximum amount > of > time they are prepared to wait for a message to be sent or become > available. > > I just wonder if the rest of the freebsd community is interested in > these > kinds of additions to the kernel? I'm pretty certain there is alot more > people out there who'd like this functionality. Should I bother posting > them to the list? > > As a sidenote: The main reason I need this is since I can't use > longjmp()/setjmp() with alarm() between pthread contexts; with FreeBSD > 5.0 > this fix probably won't be necessary (but still nice to have though). > > And besides, I'd get paid to contribute to the project! =) Actually, what i'd like to see is kqueue filters able to attach to sysVipc. I'm pretty sure something like msgrcv_t()/msgsnd_t() won't make it into the kernel, however I'd take a personal interest in having kqueue'able sysV message queues and would be happy to assist you in getting that into the kernel. I'm also unsure why you'd want a "timeout", although it'd be less effecient you could effectively poll by using IPC_NOWAIT and usleep(3) or nanosleep(2). -- -Alfred Perlstein - [bright@wintelcom.net|alfred@freebsd.org] "I have the heart of a child; I keep it in a jar on my desk." To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message