Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!mit-eddie!ll-xn!ames!lll-tis!ptsfa!amdahl!acs
From: acs@amdahl.amdahl.com (Tony Sumrall)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Endless WaitIO() in VT100
Message-ID: <16749@amdahl.amdahl.com>
Date: Thu, 22-Oct-87 04:05:30 EDT
Article-I.D.: amdahl.16749
Posted: Thu Oct 22 04:05:30 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 24-Oct-87 16:45:18 EDT
References: <16584@amdahl.amdahl.com> <31537@sun.uucp>
Reply-To: acs@amdahl.amdahl.com (Tony Sumrall)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA
Lines: 31

In article <31537@sun.uucp> cmcmanis@sun.UUCP (Chuck McManis) writes:
>Actually, there is a definite race condition when you use AbortIO to 
 ^^^^^^^^---is this a statement of fact or opinion?
>abort a request. Since the request may actually finish just before the
>call to AbortIO, if you then do a WaitIO you will never return because
>the there is no request there! So you probably want to add a call to 
>CheckIO to make sure the request still exists before waiting on it, thus
>the code would look something like ...
>
>	AbortIO(request);
>	if (CheckIO(...)) WaitIO(request);

I took the postings back in May to mean that AbortIO() will work correctly
regardless of the "state" of the request (i.e. completed or not).  If the
request *has* completed you should have a signal waiting for you, no?  The
AbortIO() shouldn't diddle with pending signals should it?  I don't think
so but a little inside knowledge would help here (C-A, you there :-).

Nonetheless, your stated method may work and I'll give 'er a try once I
have a free hour or so.

BTW, if anyone is interested in a transcript of the postings that I keep
alluding to I'd be happy to ship you a copy...just send me some mail.

>--Chuck McManis

-- 
Tony Sumrall acs@amdahl.com <=> amdahl!acs

[ Opinions expressed herein are the author's and should not be construed
  to reflect the views of Amdahl Corp. ]