On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 03:18:40PM +0000, Alan Burlison wrote: > On 29/10/2015 14:58, David Holland wrote: > >ISTM that the best way to do this is to post a signal to the thread so > >accept bails with EINTR, at which point it can check to see if it's > >supposed to be exiting. > > Yes, you could use pthread_kill, but that would require keeping a list of > the tids of all the threads that were using the FD, and that really just > moves the problem elsewhere rather than fixing it.
Hardly; it moves the burden of doing stupid things to the application. If as you said the goal is to shut down all threads cleanly, then it doesn't need to keep track in detail anyway; it can just post SIGTERM to every thread, or SIGUSR1 if SIGTERM is bad for some reason, or whatever. > >Otherwise it sounds like the call you're looking for is not close(2) > >but revoke(2). Last I remember Linux doesn't have revoke because > >there's no way to implement it that isn't a trainwreck. > > close(2) as per specified by POSIX works just fine on Solaris, if that was > the case everywhere then it wouldn't be an issue. And for cases where it is > necessary to keep the FD assigned because of races, the dup2(2) trick works > fine as well. close(2) as specified by POSIX doesn't prohibit this weird revoke-like behavior, but there's nothing in there that mandates it either. (I thought this discussion had already clarified that.) Note that while NetBSD apparently supports this behavior because someone copied it from Solaris, I'm about to go recommend it be removed. -- David A. Holland dholl...@netbsd.org -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
