From owner-freebsd-arch Fri Sep 28 2: 1:18 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [216.33.66.196]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8487B37B425 for ; Fri, 28 Sep 2001 02:01:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by elvis.mu.org (Postfix, from userid 1192) id 6F20081D0D; Fri, 28 Sep 2001 04:01:13 -0500 (CDT) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 04:01:13 -0500 From: Alfred Perlstein To: Julian Elischer Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: KSE next steps... Message-ID: <20010928040113.B59854@elvis.mu.org> References: <3BB410B3.A2527C09@elischer.org> <3BB4259D.4AF78B4@elischer.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <3BB4259D.4AF78B4@elischer.org>; from julian@elischer.org on Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 12:24:13AM -0700 Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG * Julian Elischer [010928 02:44] wrote: > > int abort_thread(struct kt_context *ktc); /* if we find a thread in */ > /* this process that has this ktc, */ > /* then if it is sleeping, abort the syscall */ > /* if it is running, let it continue but set */ > /* flag so that if it tries to sleep, it aborts */ > /* instead */ Unless I'm misunderstanding you, this will not be possible without a tremendous amount of work, a variation that may work is allowing the syscall to run to completion, returning the error code and then aborting it. Too much code would have to change if tsleep became a cancellation point. -- -Alfred Perlstein [alfred@freebsd.org] 'Instead of asking why a piece of software is using "1970s technology," start asking why software is ignoring 30 years of accumulated wisdom.' To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message