atom feed31 messages in org.freebsd.freebsd-archProposal: a revoke() system call
FromSent OnAttachments
Sergey BabkinJul 6, 2008 10:30 pm 
Robert WatsonJul 6, 2008 11:05 pm 
Poul-Henning KampJul 7, 2008 7:50 am 
Sergey BabkinJul 7, 2008 3:05 pm 
Sergey BabkinJul 7, 2008 3:12 pm 
Robert WatsonJul 7, 2008 3:29 pm 
Coleman KaneJul 7, 2008 3:39 pm 
Poul-Henning KampJul 7, 2008 4:03 pm 
Poul-Henning KampJul 7, 2008 4:05 pm 
Robert WatsonJul 7, 2008 4:33 pm 
Sergey BabkinJul 7, 2008 5:28 pm 
Sergey BabkinJul 7, 2008 5:32 pm 
Sergey BabkinJul 7, 2008 6:49 pm 
David SchultzJul 7, 2008 6:52 pm 
Ken SmithJul 7, 2008 7:32 pm 
Poul-Henning KampJul 7, 2008 7:55 pm 
Bruce EvansJul 7, 2008 8:03 pm 
Sergey BabkinJul 7, 2008 9:50 pm 
Sergey BabkinJul 7, 2008 9:56 pm 
Robert WatsonJul 7, 2008 11:06 pm 
Robert WatsonJul 7, 2008 11:15 pm 
Robert WatsonJul 7, 2008 11:22 pm 
Poul-Henning KampJul 8, 2008 6:09 am 
Dag-Erling SmørgravJul 8, 2008 11:16 am 
Sergey BabkinJul 8, 2008 12:27 pm 
Sergey BabkinJul 8, 2008 2:45 pm 
Robert WatsonJul 8, 2008 3:26 pm 
Ed SchoutenJul 8, 2008 3:36 pm 
David SchultzJul 8, 2008 4:46 pm 
Robert WatsonJul 8, 2008 4:54 pm 
John BaldwinJul 10, 2008 2:24 am 
Subject:Proposal: a revoke() system call
From:Sergey Babkin (bab@verizon.net)
Date:Jul 7, 2008 5:28:09 pm
List:org.freebsd.freebsd-arch

My thinking has been that if close() wakes them up, then things would be inherited from there. The thing I didn't know is that apparently in many cases
close() doesn't wake them up.

-SB

In cases where I need to wake the select() up immediately for cases such as this, I've implemented a "trigger pipe" that I include on the select list. This is a simple pipe, that is written to by the application in

Yep, This is the design I'm trying to avoid :-)

-SB