On Sat, Mar 2, 2024 at 6:57 AM Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
>
> * Mark Brown [2024-02-21 17:36:12 +]:
>
> > On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 09:58:01AM -0500, dal...@libc.org wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 01:53:10PM +, Mark Brown wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 08:27:37PM -0500, dal...@libc.
On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 12:25 PM H.J. Lu wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 12:18 PM H.J. Lu wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 11:22 AM Edgecombe, Rick P
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 2024-02-21 at 14:06 -0500, dal...@libc.org wrote:
> > &
On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 12:18 PM H.J. Lu wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 11:22 AM Edgecombe, Rick P
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 2024-02-21 at 14:06 -0500, dal...@libc.org wrote:
> > > Due to arbitrarily nestable signal frames, no, this does not suffice.
> >
On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 11:22 AM Edgecombe, Rick P
wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2024-02-21 at 14:06 -0500, dal...@libc.org wrote:
> > Due to arbitrarily nestable signal frames, no, this does not suffice.
> > An interrupted operation using the lock could be arbitrarily delayed,
> > even never execute again,
