Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 10:17:19 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: scrappy@ki.net (Marc G. Fournier) Cc: twpierce@bio-3.bsd.uchicago.edu, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: semaphores/shared memory Message-ID: <199611111717.KAA18289@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.3.95.961111054151.10127G-100000@quagmire.ki.net> from "Marc G. Fournier" at Nov 11, 96 05:44:19 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > No, sorry, even this shouldn't be necessary. Have the server > > create the semaphore and increment its value to 1. Then have each > > client wait until the semaphore becomes 0. When the data has been > > written to shared memory, have the server decrement the semaphore > > to zero, which will unblock all of the clients. > > > > Okay, now bearing in mind that I'm looking at the examples as > presented in "Unix Network Programming" by W. Richard Stevens...how > do n clients signal back to the server that its finished with the data > and can send up the next set of data? This is why I didn't suggest the same soloution. However, now I have to question my assumptions... why is it necessary for the clients to signal the server? Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199611111717.KAA18289>