On Mon, 7 May 2007, Ulrich Drepper wrote: > On 5/7/07, Davi Arnaut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > See Linus's message on this same thread. > > No. I'm talking about the userlevel side, not kernel side. > > If a thread is canceled *after* it returns from the syscall but before > it reports the event to the call (i.e., while still in the syscall > wrapper, thread cancellation rules require a check there) the event is > lost.
read(2) is a cancellation point too. So if the fine userspace code issues a random pthread_cancel() to a thread handling that, data is lost together with the session that thread was handling. Hmm, I wonder how the world could have functioned so far. Bottom line is, if you really want to throw random cancels to your worker threads, you better wrap them into pthread_cleanup_push(). Because otherwise, no matter where your cancel hits, you end up with a broken system. - Davide - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
