From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-Id: <200509211505.j8LF5FQ00275@zamenhof.cs.utwente.nl>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] thread confusion
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 21 Sep 2005 16:44:15 +0200."
	<2e4165d0a4172357099de271ac66cd5e@lsub.org> 
References: <2e4165d0a4172357099de271ac66cd5e@lsub.org> 
From: Axel Belinfante <Axel.Belinfante@cs.utwente.nl>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 17:05:15 +0200
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 8e39c260-ead0-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> Thus, excuse me for suggesting this again ;-), have you tried not to use
> interrupts? In your case, if "the other end" decides to give up, can't it
> let you know so you could shutdown and restart in a clean way?

I have tried not to use interrupts.
I know when the other end wants to restart.

My essential problem seems to be to 'shutdown' this pending library call -
it will not time out by itself -- if indeed it does not react
to me closing the pipe, it will stay there forever.
But maybe I did something wrong there.

I'll think things through again (as I wrote: back to the drawing board).

Thanks for your reaction.

Axel.