The other obvious problem is that if there are contenders on the semaphore, the
semaphore may well not remain acquirable between the return from select and the
call
to actually acquire the semaphore.
What I'd think you need is a "device" that you open, then attach a semaphore to
(with
an
The other obvious problem is that if there are contenders on the semaphore, the
semaphore may well not remain acquirable between the return from select and the
call
to actually acquire the semaphore.
What I'd think you need is a device that you open, then attach a semaphore to
(with
an
* Ulrich Drepper ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 23:05:04 -0800, Chris Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Yeah, here it is. I refreshed it against a current kernel. It passes my
> > same old test, where I select on /proc//status fd in exceptfds.
>
> Looks certainly
* Ulrich Drepper ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 23:05:04 -0800, Chris Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yeah, here it is. I refreshed it against a current kernel. It passes my
same old test, where I select on /proc/pid/status fd in exceptfds.
Looks certainly attractive to
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 23:05:04 -0800, Chris Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yeah, here it is. I refreshed it against a current kernel. It passes my
> same old test, where I select on /proc//status fd in exceptfds.
Looks certainly attractive to me. Nice small patch. How quickly
after the
* Chris Wright ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> * Ulrich Drepper ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > And is another thing to consider. There is at least one other event
> > which should be pollable: process (maybe threads) deaths. I was
> > hoping that we get support for this, perhaps in the form of
* Ulrich Drepper ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> And is another thing to consider. There is at least one other event
> which should be pollable: process (maybe threads) deaths. I was
> hoping that we get support for this, perhaps in the form of polling
> the /proc/PID directory. For poll(), a
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 17:17:51 -0600, Brent Casavant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2. select/poll on the fd return EWOULDBLOCK if the current value of
> the futex is not equal to the value of interest. Otherwise it
> behaves as FUTEX_FD currently does.
This is the problematic part.
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005, Brandon Corey wrote:
> I'm trying to find out if there is a pollable semaphore equivalent on Linux.
>
> The main idea of a "pollable semaphore", is a semaphore with a related
> file descriptor. The file descriptor can be used to select() when the
> semaphore is acquirable.
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005, Roland Dreier wrote:
> Brandon> I'm trying to find out if there is a pollable semaphore
> Brandon> equivalent on Linux. The main idea of a "pollable
> Brandon> semaphore", is a semaphore with a related file
> Brandon> descriptor. The file descriptor can be
Brandon> I'm trying to find out if there is a pollable semaphore
Brandon> equivalent on Linux. The main idea of a "pollable
Brandon> semaphore", is a semaphore with a related file
Brandon> descriptor. The file descriptor can be used to select()
Brandon> when the semaphore is
Brandon I'm trying to find out if there is a pollable semaphore
Brandon equivalent on Linux. The main idea of a pollable
Brandon semaphore, is a semaphore with a related file
Brandon descriptor. The file descriptor can be used to select()
Brandon when the semaphore is
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005, Roland Dreier wrote:
Brandon I'm trying to find out if there is a pollable semaphore
Brandon equivalent on Linux. The main idea of a pollable
Brandon semaphore, is a semaphore with a related file
Brandon descriptor. The file descriptor can be used to
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005, Brandon Corey wrote:
I'm trying to find out if there is a pollable semaphore equivalent on Linux.
The main idea of a pollable semaphore, is a semaphore with a related
file descriptor. The file descriptor can be used to select() when the
semaphore is acquirable. This
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 17:17:51 -0600, Brent Casavant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2. select/poll on the fd return EWOULDBLOCK if the current value of
the futex is not equal to the value of interest. Otherwise it
behaves as FUTEX_FD currently does.
This is the problematic part. The
* Ulrich Drepper ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
And is another thing to consider. There is at least one other event
which should be pollable: process (maybe threads) deaths. I was
hoping that we get support for this, perhaps in the form of polling
the /proc/PID directory. For poll(), a POLLERR
* Chris Wright ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
* Ulrich Drepper ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
And is another thing to consider. There is at least one other event
which should be pollable: process (maybe threads) deaths. I was
hoping that we get support for this, perhaps in the form of polling
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 23:05:04 -0800, Chris Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yeah, here it is. I refreshed it against a current kernel. It passes my
same old test, where I select on /proc/pid/status fd in exceptfds.
Looks certainly attractive to me. Nice small patch. How quickly
after the
18 matches
Mail list logo
