On Fri, Sep 04, 2015 at 04:35:24PM +0800, Erich Dollansky wrote:
> Hi,.
>
> On Fri, 4 Sep 2015 11:18:57 +0300
> Konstantin Belousov wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Sep 04, 2015 at 08:37:40AM +0800, Erich Dollansky wrote:
> > > On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 13:43:51 +0300
> > >
> > > and it works there.
> > >
> > >
Hi,.
On Fri, 4 Sep 2015 11:18:57 +0300
Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 04, 2015 at 08:37:40AM +0800, Erich Dollansky wrote:
> > On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 13:43:51 +0300
> >
> > and it works there.
> >
> > So, it is just a matter of time until the fix finds its way back to
> > 10?
> Yes, shou
On Fri, Sep 04, 2015 at 08:37:40AM +0800, Erich Dollansky wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 13:43:51 +0300
> Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 06:33:53PM +0800, Erich Dollansky wrote:
> > > On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 11:19:47 +0300
> > > Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> > > > On Thu,
Hi,
On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 13:43:51 +0300
Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 06:33:53PM +0800, Erich Dollansky wrote:
> > On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 11:19:47 +0300
> > Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> > > On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 08:00:47AM +0800, Erich Dollansky wrote:
> > > > Is this change o
Hi,
On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 13:43:51 +0300
Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 06:33:53PM +0800, Erich Dollansky wrote:
> > On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 11:19:47 +0300
> > Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 08:00:47AM +0800, Erich Dollansky wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I
On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 06:33:53PM +0800, Erich Dollansky wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 11:19:47 +0300
> Konstantin Belousov wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 08:00:47AM +0800, Erich Dollansky wrote:
> > >
> > > Is this change of behaviour a feature or a bug?
> >
> > Provide a minimal
Hi,
On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 11:19:47 +0300
Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 08:00:47AM +0800, Erich Dollansky wrote:
> >
> > Is this change of behaviour a feature or a bug?
>
> Provide a minimal example demonstrating the issue.
while preparing the example I found the source of
On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 08:00:47AM +0800, Erich Dollansky wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I noticed a change in behaviour when calling pthread_cancel for a
> thread which is sleeping using i.e. sleep ().
>
> How I understand pthread_cancel, it should cancel the thread and call
> the clean up handler soon after
Hi,
I noticed a change in behaviour when calling pthread_cancel for a
thread which is sleeping using i.e. sleep ().
How I understand pthread_cancel, it should cancel the thread and call
the clean up handler soon after its return. Important is that the
cancelled thread waited on a cancellation poi
