-)
>
> regards,
> alexander.
>
> -Dimitri Staessens wrote: -
> To: Alexander Terekhov
> From: Dimitri Staessens
> Date: 06/14/2017 01:20PM
> Cc: austin-group-l@opengroup.org
> Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: request for clarification on Open Group Base
> Specif
Dimitri Staessens
To: austin-group-l@opengroup.org
Date: 14.06.2017 11:32
Subject:Fwd: Re: request for clarification on Open Group Base
Specifications Issue 7: Canc...
The same document also states:
Cancellation points are points inside of certain functions where a thre
t; From: Dimitri Staessens
> To: austin-group-l@opengroup.org
> Date:14.06.2017 11:32
> Subject:Fwd: Re: request for clarification on Open Group Base
> Specifications Issue 7: Canc...
>
ug report and I'll request explicit opposite change
regarding "shall occur" list and "an event that a thread is waiting for
has occurred".
regards,
alexander.
From: Dimitri Staessens
To: austin-group-l@opengroup.org
Date: 14.06.2017 11:32
Subject:
;yesterday' (e.g. absolutely expired timeouts) when a' blocking call'
> does not really 'block' in a metaphysical sense and only reports an
> occurrence of an event.
>
> regards,
> alexander.
>
>
>
> From:Dimitri Staessens
> To:
rrence
of an event.
regards,
alexander.
From: Dimitri Staessens
To: shwares...@aol.com, austin-group-l@opengroup.org
Date: 14.06.2017 08:33
Subject: Re: request for clarification on Open Group Base
Specifications Issue 7: Canc...
On 06/14/17 01:18, shwares...@aol.com wrote:
While
On 06/14/17 01:18, shwares...@aol.com wrote:
> While that is the link for general consumption, it's also available at:
> https://www.opengroup.org/austin/login.html
> along with other versions and support documents.
Thanks!
>
> As to the text, when a preemptive scheduler is being used there's a
>
While that is the link for general consumption, it's also available at:
https://www.opengroup.org/austin/login.html
along with other versions and support documents.
As to the text, when a preemptive scheduler is being used there's a
remote chance an interface can perform the cancellation check
Can someone confirm that this is the correct full version of the
specification to reference if I file a bug report?
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7582338/
On 06/13/17 18:05, Dimitri Staessens wrote:
>
> So apparently this change was somehow intended to allow the case. But
> it is neverthele
So apparently this change was somehow intended to allow the case. But it
is nevertheless wrong since it contradicts the following statement:
"For functions in the "shall occur" list, a cancellation check must be
performed on every call regardless of whether, absent the cancellation,
the call would
Hi Geoff,
Awesome service, thanks!
Dimitri
On 06/13/17 13:35, Geoff Clare wrote:
> Dimitri Staessens wrote, on 12 Jun 2017:
>> Is there a way for me to track down the people that are responsible for
>> this adjustment in the specification so that they can comment on their
>> intentions and moti
Dimitri Staessens wrote, on 12 Jun 2017:
>
> Is there a way for me to track down the people that are responsible for
> this adjustment in the specification so that they can comment on their
> intentions and motivations for making it?
https://collaboration.opengroup.org/austin/interps/documents/14
d right to me.
>
> regards,
> alexander.
>
>
>
> From:Dimitri Staessens
> To:Alexander Terekhov ,
> austin-group-l@opengroup.org
> Date: 12.06.2017 11:11
> Subject: Re: req
@opengroup.org
Date: 12.06.2017 11:11
Subject:Re: request for clarification on Open Group Base
Specifications Issue 7: Canc...
Hi Alexander,
thanks for your response.
On 06/12/17 09:39, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Hi,
> but return ETIMEDOUT and leave the cancellation state pending.
so that
see what is wrong here.
>
> regards,
> alexander.
>
>
>
> From:Dimitri Staessens
> To:shwares...@aol.com, austin-group-l@opengroup.org
> Date:11.06.2017 09:08
> Subject:Re: request fo
shwares...@aol.com, austin-group-l@opengroup.org
Date: 11.06.2017 09:08
Subject:Re: request for clarification on Open Group Base
Specifications Issue 7: Canc...
Hi,
Thank you for your response.
On 06/11/17 00:18, shwares...@aol.com wrote:
I don't see the interface invoked to block
Hi,
Thank you for your response.
On 06/11/17 00:18, shwares...@aol.com wrote:
> I don't see the interface invoked to block the thread is allowed to
> cancel the request completely, simply that the interface may return to
> reduce serialization latencies for the 2 bullet point cases and the
> canc
I don't see the interface invoked to block the thread is allowed to cancel
the request completely, simply that the interface may return to reduce
serialization latencies for the 2 bullet point cases and the cancellation
honored at the next plausible point in the code path, in accordance with
18 matches
Mail list logo
