Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 09:58:39 -0700 (PDT) From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org> Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: KSE next steps... Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0109280957380.71138-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <20010928040113.B59854@elvis.mu.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 28 Sep 2001, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > * Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> [010928 02:44] wrote: > > > > int abort_thread(struct kt_context *ktc); /* if we find a thread in */ > > /* this process that has this ktc, */ > > /* then if it is sleeping, abort the syscall */ > > /* if it is running, let it continue but set */ > > /* flag so that if it tries to sleep, it aborts */ > > /* instead */ > > Unless I'm misunderstanding you, this will not be possible without > a tremendous amount of work, a variation that may work is allowing > the syscall to run to completion, returning the error code and then > aborting it. Too much code would have to change if tsleep became > a cancellation point. It's already a cancelation point.. I'm talking about keeping exactly the same behaviour as presently used when you send a signal to a process that is sleeping.... > > -- > -Alfred Perlstein [alfred@freebsd.org] > 'Instead of asking why a piece of software is using "1970s technology," > start asking why software is ignoring 30 years of accumulated wisdom.' > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0109280957380.71138-100000>