Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2008 16:04:10 +0000 From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> To: Sergey Babkin <babkin@verizon.net> Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Proposal: a revoke() system call Message-ID: <6860.1215446650@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 07 Jul 2008 10:12:29 EST." <1878557.67061215443549669.JavaMail.root@vms074.mailsrvcs.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <1878557.67061215443549669.JavaMail.root@vms074.mailsrvcs.net>, Serg ey Babkin writes: >My thinking has been that if close() wakes them up, then things would be >inherited from there. The thing I didn't know is that apparently in many cases close() >doesn't wake them up. It's a novel idea, seen with POSIX eyes, that a thread can close a fd it is sleeping on, so the semantics, how obvious they might be, is not described in the standards, and more importantly, not described in the code either. The device driver problem has more angles to it and should be thought out separately, since the same basic functionality is required for hardware removal, only more draconian. I'm not saying that such a systemcall is not a good idea, I'm merely very cautious about what it takes to implement it. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?6860.1215446650>