ed from kevent are for the new fd 5.
>
> (I suspect it helps that kevent() is both the only way to
> bind events and the only way to pick them up; makes it harder
> for one thread to sneak a new fd into the event list without
> the thread calling kevent() noticing.)
Yes, that's ho
* Jamie Lokier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001027 08:21] wrote:
> Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> > > If a programmer does not ever wish to block under any circumstances, it's
> > > his obligation to communicate this desire to the implementation. Otherwise,
> > > t
hread case, this would be a bug; if one thread closes
> > the descriptor, the other thread is going to get an EBADF when it goes
> > to perform the read.
>
> Another thread may already have reused the fd
This is another example of an application threading problem.
--
-Alfred
ure we'd be forced to adopt it, but if you
make kqueue generate info an application won't care about I don't
think that would be taken back.
--
-Alfred Perlstein - [[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
"I have the heart of a child; I keep it in a jar on my desk."
-
To uns
mply that it is one hell of a bug to block, returning
an error would be acceptable, but surely not blocking.
I know manpages are a poor source for references but you're the one
putting up a big fight for blocking behavior from poll, perhaps you
can point out a standard that contradicts the m
5 matches
Mail list logo
