From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Nov 11 09:28:31 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id JAA27606 for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 09:28:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from phaeton.artisoft.com (phaeton.Artisoft.COM [198.17.250.211]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id JAA27599 for ; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 09:28:28 -0800 (PST) Received: (from terry@localhost) by phaeton.artisoft.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id KAA18289; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 10:17:19 -0700 From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199611111717.KAA18289@phaeton.artisoft.com> Subject: Re: semaphores/shared memory To: scrappy@ki.net (Marc G. Fournier) Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 10:17:19 -0700 (MST) Cc: twpierce@bio-3.bsd.uchicago.edu, hackers@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: from "Marc G. Fournier" at Nov 11, 96 05:44:19 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > No, sorry, even this shouldn't be necessary. Have the server > > create the semaphore and increment its value to 1. Then have each > > client wait until the semaphore becomes 0. When the data has been > > written to shared memory, have the server decrement the semaphore > > to zero, which will unblock all of the clients. > > > > Okay, now bearing in mind that I'm looking at the examples as > presented in "Unix Network Programming" by W. Richard Stevens...how > do n clients signal back to the server that its finished with the data > and can send up the next set of data? This is why I didn't suggest the same soloution. However, now I have to question my assumptions... why is it necessary for the clients to signal the server? Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.