This is the mail archive of the glibc-bugs@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

[Bug nptl/18243] sem_wait, sem_timedwait are cancellation points shm_open is not


https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18243

--- Comment #3 from Torvald Riegel <triegel at redhat dot com> ---
I don't disagree with the three stages/steps you mentioned.  But those don't
conflict with what I said.  The POSIX wording I cited also doesn't say anything
about when the *request* happened.  What it does say is that if there's
actually no waiting, then the implementation can choose what to do.  Which is a
sensible semantics IMO.  Anything else would seem inconsistent, for example
because sem_trywait is not a cancellation point: If there is a token available
a priori, then what you argue for would mean that sem_wait and sem_trywait have
different semantics (ie, regarding cancellation).

If you disagree with this interpretation of POSIX, then please provide a
detailed argument why POSIX would require the behavior you have in mind, based
on the wording in POSIX.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]