On Thu, Dec 24, 2020 at 12:24:01AM +0100, Patrick Wildt wrote:
> Am Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 05:04:23PM -0600 schrieb Scott Cheloha:
> > On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 02:42:18PM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > > I agree. This chunk below is really gross and does not follow the
> > > special wakeup channel m
Am Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 05:04:23PM -0600 schrieb Scott Cheloha:
> On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 02:42:18PM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > I agree. This chunk below is really gross and does not follow the
> > special wakeup channel metaphor.
> >
> > It is *entirely clear* that a &channel called "nowake
On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 02:42:18PM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> I agree. This chunk below is really gross and does not follow the
> special wakeup channel metaphor.
>
> It is *entirely clear* that a &channel called "nowake" has no wakeup.
> Like duh.
>
> > +/*
> > + * nowake is a global sleep c
I agree. This chunk below is really gross and does not follow the
special wakeup channel metaphor.
It is *entirely clear* that a &channel called "nowake" has no wakeup.
Like duh.
> +/*
> + * nowake is a global sleep channel for threads that do not want
> + * to receive wakeup(9) broadcasts.
> +
> Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2020 14:59:02 -0600
> From: Scott Cheloha
>
> Okay, let's try one more time.
>
> This patch adds a global sleep channel, "nowake", for sleeping threads
> that don't want to receive wakeup(9) broadcasts.
>
> You use it like this:
>
> #include
>
> tsleep(nowake,
Okay, let's try one more time.
This patch adds a global sleep channel, "nowake", for sleeping threads
that don't want to receive wakeup(9) broadcasts.
You use it like this:
#include
tsleep(nowake, ...);
I've added additional assertions to tsleep, msleep, and rwsleep that
ensur
