Yes, I did mean thread, and I hadn't realized this would kill all the threads. I'll try with ioproc then, thanks for the example.
Mathieu
--- Begin Message ---If you really mean thread and not proc, then what you suggest won't work. You can't kill a thread that's in the OS without killing the proc conyaining the thread (thereby killing all the other threads as well). You can have the proc catch notes and send a note to the proc which will interrupt any system call, thereby pulling the thread out of the dial. A more elgant way to do this would be to use ioproc(2), or to create procs explicitly to do the dial I/O. Sape > From: lejat...@gmail.com > To: 9fans@9fans.net > Reply-To: 9fans@9fans.net > Date: Thu Sep 10 11:38:50 CES 2009 > Subject: [9fans] dial and time out > > Hello 9fans, > > I have a bunch of threads, simply scheduled with yield() at the moment > (I'll use alt later on), and each of them is calling dial() at some > point. I don't want the other threads to wait for "too long" when one > of them is blocked on a dial() that will eventually time out. > So I was thinking, for each of them, of creating a proc which would > be used as a timer; it would be created just before the call to dial, > wait for some time, and then kill the dial()ing thread. And as mechiel > suggested, the dial()ing thread would also be set to kill the timer > after it successfully dialed, hence not being killed if it was fast > enough. > > Is that the right way to go? If yes, can anyone think of an already > existing example I can look at? > > Mathieu >
--- End Message ---
