From owner-freebsd-arch Fri Sep 28 9: 3:48 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from InterJet.elischer.org (c421509-a.pinol1.sfba.home.com [24.7.86.9]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65FD137B40D for ; Fri, 28 Sep 2001 09:03:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost.elischer.org [127.0.0.1]) by InterJet.elischer.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA71163; Fri, 28 Sep 2001 09:58:39 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 09:58:39 -0700 (PDT) From: Julian Elischer To: Alfred Perlstein Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: KSE next steps... In-Reply-To: <20010928040113.B59854@elvis.mu.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII 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 On Fri, 28 Sep 2001, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > * 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. It's already a cancelation point.. I'm talking about keeping exactly the same behaviour as presently used when you send a signal to a process that is sleeping.... > > -- > -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