Ulrich Drepper wrote:
>
> george@moberg.com writes:
>
> > Can we _PLEASE_PLEASE_PLEASE_ not do this anymore and have the kernel do
> > what BSD does: re-start the interrupted call?
>
> This is crap. Returning EINTR is necessary for many applications.
>
> --
> ---------------. ,-. 1325 Chesapeake Terrace
> Ulrich Drepper \ ,-------------------' \ Sunnyvale, CA 94089 USA
> Red Hat `--' drepper at redhat.com `------------------------
After reading about SA_RESTART, ok. However, couldn't those
applications that require it enable this behaviour explicitly?
The problem I'm having right now is with pthread_create() failing
because deep somewhere in either the kernel or glibc, nanosleep()
returns EINTR during said pthread_create() and pthread_create() fails.
I've got a multithreaded program written using gcc (2.95.2) and glibc
(2.1.3), and it's talking to a natively threaded Java program (tried
both Sun & Blackdown ports, both 1.2.2 and 1.3) on a 2.2.17 kernel. The
C program is listening for incoming socket connections, and the Java
program is hammering on it with many parallel connect() calls. After a
short, a bit random interval, pthread_create() will fail in either my
program, or deep in the Java VM. I assume that the Java VM is using
pthread_create().
I don't mean to sound like a psycho on this, but I can't see why
SA_RESTART isn't the default behavior. Maybe I'm missing something
somewhere.
-- George T. Talbot <george at moberg dot com> - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Nov 07 2000 - 21:00:14 EST