From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <2e4165d0a4172357099de271ac66cd5e@lsub.org>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] thread confusion
From: "Fco. J. Ballesteros" <nemo@lsub.org>
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 16:44:15 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 8d713bd8-ead0-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

AFAIK, you must call threadnotify() to install a handler for your note.
If you don't do that, your process is killed (which is what you are
seeing right now).

You should probably install a handler that says 'it's ok, got the note'.
Use threadnotify to do this. 
I understand that you are interested in the "side effect" of interrupting
the I/O call.

I't funny, anyway, because I had the same problem a few days ago;
I had to abort a connection to a `Broken-maybe' file server. I tried not
to use interrupts and I was nevertheless decided to

alarm(x)
read()
alarm(0)

the call. After letting Russ know, he (once more) suggested me not to
use interrupts and to read the Alef paper (which I had read before, btw).
However, after thinking it twice, I was able to avoid the interrupts.
(The process is kept there, it will sooner or later abort due to a broken
connection).

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?

hth