[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Concurrency, again
From: |
Herring, Davis |
Subject: |
RE: Concurrency, again |
Date: |
Thu, 20 Oct 2016 07:12:08 +0000 |
> we do that by calling waitpid() but then the kernel discards the child
> process’s status info, so the "correct" thread can no longer respond
> to the signal by making another waitpid() call to collect the status
> info. We’d have to save the info the first time we call waitpid().
> But doing it from within the signal handler could be tricky, because
> in that context we’re limited to async-signal-safe functions, and
> helpful routines like malloc() and pthread_mutex_lock() aren’t on the
> list.
waitid() supports the WNOWAIT flag that peeks at the child information without
destroying it:
http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/waitid.html
Davis
- Re: Concurrency, again, (continued)
- Re: Concurrency, again, Tom Tromey, 2016/10/17
- Re: Concurrency, again, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/10/18
- Re: Concurrency, again, Ken Raeburn, 2016/10/18
- Re: Concurrency, again, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/10/18
- Re: Concurrency, again, Ken Raeburn, 2016/10/18
- Re: Concurrency, again, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/10/18
- Re: Concurrency, again, Ken Raeburn, 2016/10/19
- Re: Concurrency, again, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/10/19
- Re: Concurrency, again, Ken Raeburn, 2016/10/20
- Re: Concurrency, again, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/10/20
- RE: Concurrency, again,
Herring, Davis <=
- Re: Concurrency, again, Ken Raeburn, 2016/10/20
- Re: Concurrency, again, Paul Eggert, 2016/10/20
- Re: Concurrency, again, Alan Third, 2016/10/18
- Re: Concurrency, again, Ken Raeburn, 2016/10/19
- Re: Concurrency, again, Tom Tromey, 2016/10/18
- Re: Concurrency, again, Philipp Stephani, 2016/10/25
- Re: Concurrency, again, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/10/25
- Re: Concurrency, again, John Wiegley, 2016/10/25
- Re: Concurrency, again, Philipp Stephani, 2016/10/25
- Re: Concurrency, again, Stefan Huchler, 2016/10/25