Jakub Jelinek wrote: > In futex(2) case (except FUTEX_LOCK_PI where we want it to be restartable), > getting EINTR rather than the getting the syscall restarted is very > desirable though and several NPTL routines rely on it. Jakub, you're slightly missing the point. Restartable means the only if SA_RESTART is set the syscall restarts. Otherwise it returns. That should always be the behavior if EINTR is an acceptable error. The difference for the _PI operations is that be never need to see EINTR errors. I.e., the syscall should _always_ restart, regardless of SA_RESTART. That's not done using the error code but through explicit programming. I told Ingo that we don't need EINTR for those operations and I hope that part is still in. -- ➧ Ulrich Drepper ➧ Red Hat, Inc. ➧ 444 Castro St ➧ Mountain View, CA ❖
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
- References:
- Re: Strange Linux behaviour with blocking syscalls and stop signals+SIGCONT
- From: "Michael Kerrisk" <[email protected]>
- Re: Strange Linux behaviour with blocking syscalls and stop signals+SIGCONT
- From: Manfred Spraul <[email protected]>
- Re: Strange Linux behaviour with blocking syscalls and stop signals+SIGCONT
- From: Ulrich Drepper <[email protected]>
- Re: Re: Strange Linux behaviour with blocking syscalls and stop signals+SIGCONT
- From: "Michael Kerrisk" <[email protected]>
- Re: Strange Linux behaviour with blocking syscalls and stop signals+SIGCONT
- From: Ulrich Drepper <[email protected]>
- Re: Re: Strange Linux behaviour with blocking syscalls and stop signals+SIGCONT
- From: "Michael Kerrisk" <[email protected]>
- Re: Strange Linux behaviour with blocking syscalls and stop signals+SIGCONT
- From: Ulrich Drepper <[email protected]>
- Re: Strange Linux behaviour with blocking syscalls and stop signals+SIGCONT
- From: "Michael Kerrisk" <[email protected]>
- Re: Strange Linux behaviour with blocking syscalls and stop signals+SIGCONT
- From: Arjan van de Ven <[email protected]>
- Re: Strange Linux behaviour with blocking syscalls and stop signals+SIGCONT
- From: "Michael Kerrisk" <[email protected]>
- Re: Strange Linux behaviour with blocking syscalls and stop signals+SIGCONT
- From: Jakub Jelinek <[email protected]>
- Re: Strange Linux behaviour with blocking syscalls and stop signals+SIGCONT
- Prev by Date: Re: splice/tee bugs?
- Next by Date: Re: Problems porting asus_acpi to LED subsystem
- Previous by thread: Re: Strange Linux behaviour with blocking syscalls and stop signals+SIGCONT
- Next by thread: Re: Re: Strange Linux behaviour with blocking syscalls and stop signals+SIGCONT
- Index(es):
 |