Paul Davis wrote:
>
>
> >> >Note also that signals may have some non atomicity troubles.
> >>
> >> such as?
> >
> >Go to sleep *after* signal has been received (same problems that's faced
> >with pthread_cond_wait semantic).
>
> Nope. sigblock/sigsuspend/sigpending take care of that.
>
> As I said to Richard, I don't really care about the internal
> implementation that much as long as it works. kill(2) just seemed to
> me much more amenable to the kind of system we need. i don't think
> that it *can't* be done with writing to an fd, but i think its a lot
> more work.
I suppose next time it's better you specify "this is an implementation
detail I think it's not important to define now".
It would save some traffic.
Abramo "sweating hot flu" Bagnara
--
Abramo Bagnara mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Opera Unica Phone: +39.546.656023
Via Emilia Interna, 140
48014 Castel Bolognese (RA) - Italy
ALSA project http://www.alsa-project.org
It sounds good!
