From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Oct 4 00:20:00 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F39481065673 for ; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 00:19:59 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from adrian.chadd@gmail.com) Received: from mail-yx0-f182.google.com (mail-yx0-f182.google.com [209.85.213.182]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 963188FC14 for ; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 00:19:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: by yxk36 with SMTP id 36so5131407yxk.13 for ; Mon, 03 Oct 2011 17:19:58 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=8RuIdP//Yq6UfHsL1TtUjwjWi80gq6u6f7x/rywneAM=; b=UmJb7HEZsKBgspCAi+vqSDkrqYK9aaaDOEjCXTmweKDeOGllPn9fSTSyAxkQ0LyVEj vZGOns5GF8eyZRKZ0MLTlr/YahhPbwaTHEx81JtsCiWmMl5Ph3odJe+PXttzqdU5h2zX XcqzXVQ8YXFkHxfa5lYEzoIJsciY2dfj6wwnw= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.236.124.97 with SMTP id w61mr3007863yhh.106.1317687598802; Mon, 03 Oct 2011 17:19:58 -0700 (PDT) Sender: adrian.chadd@gmail.com Received: by 10.236.111.42 with HTTP; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 17:19:58 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20110908221356.Horde.MFEsZ6Qd9PdOaSIEaid2X_A@avocado.salatschuessel.net> <4E692F87.5010708@sentex.net> <20110909073305.Horde.oi-EGaQd9PdOaaURAsTRVJk@avocado.salatschuessel.net> <4E6A076D.7040309@wintek.com> <20111003213024.GA42715@stack.nl> Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 08:19:58 +0800 X-Google-Sender-Auth: fNld4h2lnuwwW49X1kik4I3qCgI Message-ID: From: Adrian Chadd To: Maxime Henrion Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Alexander Zagrebin , Jilles Tjoelker Subject: Re: cvsup broken on amd64? X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2011 00:20:00 -0000 On 4 October 2011 05:53, Maxime Henrion wrote: > Great, that's a relief. I knew the pthread library was free to wake a > thread up even if it hadn't been signaled, which is why one always has > to call pthread_cond_wait() inside of a while() loop checking for the > condition, but wasn't sure about that particular scenario, so I'm glad > to hear a confirmation. Thanks! So shall I commit your change, if someone hasn't already? Adrian