Matthew Vernon writes ("Re: Bug#858555: chiark-utils-bin: [patch] add timeout
option to with-lock-ex"):
> >> + } else alarmed=0;
> >> + }
> >
> > What ? (Also, ewww at your coding style.)
>
> I was considering the possibility of a SIGALRM coming from somewhere
> else before the timer had expired (at which point, you'd go round the
> loop again, and want alarmed=0 until our itimer expired).
Oh. That would have been racy. To cope with spurious SIGALRMs would
involve a lot of pratting abouot with sigprocmask etc. Let's not.
Thanks,
Ian.
