From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/13551 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Markus Wichmann Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: sem_wait and EINTR Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2018 10:45:13 +0100 Message-ID: <20181215094513.GB3315@voyager> References: <20181206031756.GZ23599@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20181206155756.GB32233@voyager> <20181206162336.GB23599@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20181206170359.GC32233@voyager> <20181206173337.GD32233@voyager> <20181209025140.GL23599@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20181209065033.GB2554@voyager> <20181212003238.GP23599@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20181212051559.GA3315@voyager> <20181214194516.GA23599@brightrain.aerifal.cx> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1544867032 4134 195.159.176.226 (15 Dec 2018 09:43:52 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2018 09:43:52 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-13567-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Sat Dec 15 10:43:48 2018 Return-path: Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200]) by blaine.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1gY6U7-0000yw-09 for gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org; Sat, 15 Dec 2018 10:43:47 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 32217 invoked by uid 550); 15 Dec 2018 09:45:55 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-ID: Original-Received: (qmail 32195 invoked from network); 15 Dec 2018 09:45:54 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20181214194516.GA23599@brightrain.aerifal.cx> X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:DNaUBd9Rx5O5eSwUfw45djx7tgndruKJEF33LeGeAQ7p+LPG892 Se5xbCesWEX9KeHrqEPdsQ2zkZrRC5P8JSzE8W0rLJrpUhznBqoJYSAD8DQ/JREdu1mf6xn 13F1ZGL0pcVPhAHsNu1/n/ndknSLRf0kr/IiisZnen1ztW5A/DUnUtSu/6w7cjY+3OhpYZz ZY9D+RF2PJUQ0zOyZ5ddw== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:oUAQyI5U0yw=:+sUyTgcCvB4RB8AWd/F1im d+iGITB319rJ2TuJZOr2Dtu6PhS/WWWUSFrMrfqPdvQYJZaxXYXMwudJQSwLxGowkWOQC4yFP cSid7CB0VKkDz2XLBCB87R37FH9AwDGz0zXeqizXC/BTG+48AXZ4iUyFw3aDdv71A1e++v4G9 WlGCEsTomkPhdE8Tmme7OWqcyDHnczbC6X4AF0EVmLJyZf2M+KQlR752T9LZ8UA11Ywf/8+Ew kr5U3ip96R+V7olvwY9Fk1cecTAZ0hLtvvLrsMfN9C+fva65e+g/zkvw2fcE0/EnbJL29VehR 6L+BwLeJb6an07fORhCVk9kqdJymWcIjrS4hMJtaqVlgtZ16Ixa8axMH1rYltVEDxy/GO+/BS h5cIYpS23ibfbY9gTboS9mcRdPIja4cdaTzBppP7VPS/gVnvk8nzc+HM3e+/scxQp68AMTXxA qA58tDDXrtBDY00A5orjOyNsoCVkxB57f4cpoOeYyfUu1CwsNZnLpA3tGwldpfE3El4dXY97x nei0P8IWDak4jwFiaoVP5io4+CykokuCKy0FmwmzYgiAdBUjnBmCbah8SFMoVVxroc8dXdDZ1 dEhjE0xzG09izm2xwp5pVUEv59LVXkkOcXxJ/gQ9UQWWsRZ/aaVPnpyTDMcKTN0AlJwfS21KC w05R3+JULimEUx6SFeWk8gjk+msk6oS5bqk2QrYQYlmmWZ4qLPVYd/te5z0KD591kbFrwKp07 iBYR7uAaN/OzVwU3R4Cb0jM0tvD79IC4eu3bXeS6cm4sUIR9EE5ovrPxdOYrFqgKFzRDEJ4e Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:13551 Archived-At: On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 02:45:16PM -0500, Rich Felker wrote: > Perhaps help was the wrong word; I think you're right that there's > nowhere else it matters and that all other callers already ignore > EINTR unconditionally because they're supposed to. The only plausible > improvement is avoiding spurious dec/inc cycle on the waiter count in > some places. On the other hand it might be a nicer factorization (less > ugly and linux-bug-specific logic in high level code, i.e. > sem_timedwait) if the workaround were buried in low-level stuff > (__timedwait). > > [...] > > I don't see how it could hurt conformance. > > Rich I was misunderstanding you. I thought you were about to put the maybe-retry on EINTR into __timedwait() and then remove the corresponding check from all the users of __timedwait(). But apparently you want leave the users relatively unmolested. Yeah, that sounds better than what I pictured. Go right ahead, I say. Ciao, Markus