In message <2006...@delplex.bde.org>, Bruce Evans writes:
On Mon, 11 Dec 2006, Daniel Eischen wrote:
It's probably a nightmare in the kernel too. close() starts looking
like revoke(), and revoke() has large problems and bugs in this area.
There is the distinctive difference that revoke() operates on a name
and close() on a filedescriptor, but otherwise I agree.
Well, if threads waiting on IO are interruptable by signals,
can't we make a new signal that's only used by the kernel
and send it to all threads waiting on IO for that descriptor?
When it gets out to actually setup the signal handler, it
just resumes like it is returning from an SA_RESTART signal
handler (which according to another posting would reissue
the IO command and get EBADF).