James Antill wrote:
> If you want to return imediatley (and there might not be data) the
> answer given is usually...
>
> sigqueue( ... );
> sigwaitinfo( ... );
>
> If the above will still schedule, then Linus might be more likely to
> take a patch (I'd guess that he'd look at
t; opposite of sigtimedwait with a zero timeout.
Yes, sorry that's what I thought you wanted to do (Ie. you new some
data was there and wanted to get it quickly).
> sigwaitinfo is implemented as sigtimedwait with a NULL timeout which is
> read as a timeout of MAX_SCHEDULE_TIMEOUT.
Ahh I
You are not late. In fact you are the first who have responded to my
linux-kernel messages at all.
Yes, I am well aware of sigwaitinfo.
sigwaitinfo blocks infinitely if there is no queued signals and is the
opposite of sigtimedwait with a zero timeout.
sigwaitinfo is implemented
timeout.
Yes, sorry that's what I thought you wanted to do (Ie. you new some
data was there and wanted to get it quickly).
sigwaitinfo is implemented as sigtimedwait with a NULL timeout which is
read as a timeout of MAX_SCHEDULE_TIMEOUT.
Ahh I didn't know that.
sigtimedwait with a zero
James Antill wrote:
If you want to return imediatley (and there might not be data) the
answer given is usually...
sigqueue( ... );
sigwaitinfo( ... );
If the above will still schedule, then Linus might be more likely to
take a patch (I'd guess that he'd look at sigtimedwait() to be
Hi.
While playing with signal queues it was discovered that sigtimedwait
with a zero timeout apparently does block somewhat even if it should
not.
Why:
It forces a schedule()
Also the actual delay seems to be at least 10msec more than requested,
but I guess that is an effect of the schedule
Hi.
While playing with signal queues it was discovered that sigtimedwait
with a zero timeout apparently does block somewhat even if it should
not.
Why:
It forces a schedule()
Also the actual delay seems to be at least 10msec more than requested,
but I guess that is an effect of the schedule
7 matches
Mail list logo
