Re: Can EINTR be handled the way BSD handles it? -- a plea from a user-land

From: George Talbot (george@brain.moberg.com)
Date: Mon Nov 06 2000 - 09:17:17 EST

Next message: Martin Dalecki: "Re: Persistent module storage [was Linux 2.4 Status / TODO page]"
Previous message: Davide Libenzi: "Re: Can EINTR be handled the way BSD handles it? -- a plea from a user-land"
In reply to: Theodore Y. Ts'o: "Re: Can EINTR be handled the way BSD handles it? -- a plea from a user-land"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

You know, a more concise way of stating my underlying question might be:

        Does POSIX require that programs be aware of signals, in the
        "returning EINTR" sense, if they do not use signals, and only use
        pthreads?

I might want to write a program that uses pthreads instead of signals to
handle asynchronous program behavior so that said program might be
portable to a system that implements pthreads but not signals.

-- George T. Talbot <george@moberg.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/

Next message: Martin Dalecki: "Re: Persistent module storage [was Linux 2.4 Status / TODO page]"
Previous message: Davide Libenzi: "Re: Can EINTR be handled the way BSD handles it? -- a plea from a user-land"
In reply to: Theodore Y. Ts'o: "Re: Can EINTR be handled the way BSD handles it? -- a plea from a user-land"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Nov 07 2000 - 21:00:19 EST