Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 14:51:32 -0800 From: John-Mark Gurney <jmg@funkthat.com> To: Konstantin Belousov <kib@FreeBSD.org> Cc: svn-src-head@FreeBSD.org, svn-src-all@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r217561 - in head/sys: arm/arm i386/i386 mips/mips powerpc/aim powerpc/booke sparc64/sparc64 Message-ID: <20110118225132.GD66284@funkthat.com> In-Reply-To: <201101182157.p0ILv2o1053343@svn.freebsd.org> References: <201101182157.p0ILv2o1053343@svn.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Konstantin Belousov wrote this message on Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 21:57 +0000:
> sf_buf_alloc() calls msleep(PCATCH) when SFB_CATCH flag was given,
> and for simultaneous wakeup and signal delivery, msleep() returns
> EINTR/ERESTART despite the thread was selected for wakeup_one(). As
> result, we loose a wakeup, and some other waiter will not be woken up.
Shouldn't this behavior be documented in the man page? That even
though msleep may return a non-zero value that it could have been
really woken up?
--
John-Mark Gurney Voice: +1 415 225 5579
"All that I will do, has been done, All that I have, has not."
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20110118225132.GD66284>