On Mon, Jun 25, 2001 at 11:05:19AM -0400, Paul Davis wrote: > the problem with semaphores is that Unix/POSIX semantics don't allow > integration of a process sleeping on an file descriptor and a > semaphore (one of the few areas where Windows definitely improves upon > Unix). this would mean adding yet another thread that just sleeps on > the semaphore used to drive the "process" callback. Not terrible, but > not particularly great either. The code would be a little cleaner, but > we'd have an extra thread for every client. Uhm. Seems like a high price to pay, would the code really be cleaner? - Steve
- Re: [linux-audio-dev] sysv semaphores instead of p... Paul Davis
- Re: [linux-audio-dev] sysv semaphores instead... Steve Harris
- Re: [linux-audio-dev] sysv semaphores instead... Paul Davis
- Re: [linux-audio-dev] sysv semaphores instead... Peter Hanappe
- Re: [linux-audio-dev] sysv semaphores instead... Benno Senoner
- Re: [linux-audio-dev] sysv semaphores ins... Paul Davis
- Re: [linux-audio-dev] sysv semaphores ins... Richard Guenther
- Re: [linux-audio-dev] sysv semaphores instead... Simon Per Soren Kagedal
- Re: [linux-audio-dev] sysv semaphores ins... Paul Davis
- Re: [linux-audio-dev] sysv semaphores instead... Paul Davis
- Re: [linux-audio-dev] sysv semaphores ins... Peter Hanappe