From owner-freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jul 8 06:24:21 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 589E137B401 for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 06:24:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.speakeasy.net (mail15.speakeasy.net [216.254.0.215]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18D5743FA3 for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 06:24:20 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from john@baldwin.cx) Received: (qmail 3617 invoked from network); 8 Jul 2003 13:24:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO server.baldwin.cx) ([216.27.160.63]) (envelope-sender )encrypted SMTP for ; 8 Jul 2003 13:24:18 -0000 Received: from zion.baldwin.cx (zion.baldwin.cx [192.168.0.7]) by server.baldwin.cx (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h68DOGGI095882; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 09:24:16 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from john@baldwin.cx) Received: from zion.baldwin.cx (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zion.baldwin.cx (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h68DOGPg038159; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 09:24:16 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from john@zion.baldwin.cx) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by zion.baldwin.cx (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h68DOFiS038158; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 09:24:15 -0400 (EDT) From: John Baldwin To: Terry Lambert , deischen@FreeBSD.org Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 09:23:20 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.5 References: <3F0A9E8E.99CA9BD@mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <3F0A9E8E.99CA9BD@mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200307080923.20011.jhb@FreeBSD.org> cc: threads@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: libc_r silliness X-BeenThere: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Threading on FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2003 13:24:21 -0000 On Tuesday 08 July 2003 06:35 am, Terry Lambert wrote: > Daniel Eischen wrote: > > On Mon, 7 Jul 2003, John Baldwin wrote: > > > > I don't really know how to handle this. We can wrap > > > > sched_get_priority_{min,max}(), but how do we know whether > > > > the application wants process priorities or thread > > > > priorities? > > > > > > Ugh. Perhaps the manpage should at least be updated to not > > > reference the macros. What does POSIX say about the confusion > > > between sched_get_priority_{min,max}? > > > > Sure, update the man pages if you want ;-) > > > > I have not found anything yet regarding sched_get_priority_{min,max} > > confusion in the POSIX spec... > > http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007904975/functions/sched_get_priority_ >max.html > > The functions take a policy parameter; they are supposed to > return "appropriate" values, which I took to mean "appropriate > to the policy parameter supplied at the time they were called": > > int sched_get_priority_max(int policy); > int sched_get_priority_min(int policy); > > The sched_get_priority_max() and sched_get_priority_min() > functions shall return the appropriate maximum or minimum, > respectively, for the scheduling policy specified by policy. Yes, but in a multithreaded program when I call sched_get_priority_max(SCHED_RR), does that tell me the maximum process SCHED_RR priority for use with sched_setschedparam() or does it tell me the maximum thread SCHED_RR priority for use with pthread_setschedparam()? -- John Baldwin <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/