Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 beta 3/9/83; site encore.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!panda!talcott!encore!ptw
From: ptw@encore.UUCP (P. Tucker Withington)
Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards,net.sources
Subject: Re: When does ( alarm(1) == alarm(INFINITY) ) ?
Message-ID: <179@encore.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 12-Mar-85 14:25:56 EST
Article-I.D.: encore.179
Posted: Tue Mar 12 14:25:56 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 14-Mar-85 04:38:30 EST
References: <132@heurikon.UUCP> <1094@calgary.UUCP> <1095@calgary.UUCP> <1097@calgary.UUCP> <178@encore.UUCP>
Reply-To: ptw@encore.UUCP (P. Tucker Withington)
Organization: Encore Computer Corp., Wellesley Hills, MA
Lines: 17
Xref: watmath net.unix-wizards:12424 net.sources:2702
Summary: 

As long as I'm opening myself up to flames...

It just occurred to me that with a simple change to the semantics of pause the
"wakeup waiting" flag could be considered to already be in the kernel:

As I read the manual (I didn't read the code) pause will only return when a
signal is "caught".  If the semantics were that it would also return
(immediately) if there were no signal handlers active (since they revert when
caught), the race condition would also disappear.  Pause could even return a
different error in this case, informing you that there is nothing to pause for
(in the spirit of ECHILD) if you really want to go whole hog.

                               o.o      --tucker
                                ~

(I know, I really should be using 4.2 and I do, but SysV ain't all *that* bad
either.)