This is the mail archive of the
glibc-bugs@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
[Bug nptl/18243] sem_wait, sem_timedwait are cancellation points shm_open is not
- From: "triegel at redhat dot com" <sourceware-bugzilla at sourceware dot org>
- To: glibc-bugs at sourceware dot org
- Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2016 17:29:46 +0000
- Subject: [Bug nptl/18243] sem_wait, sem_timedwait are cancellation points shm_open is not
- Auto-submitted: auto-generated
- References: <bug-18243-131@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
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.