On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 11:58 AM, Jilles Tjoelker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 07:11:26PM -0400, Michael B Allen wrote:
>> Below is a semtimedop(2) implementation that I'm using for FreeBSD. I
>> was hoping someone could look it over and tell me if they think the
>> implemen
On Friday 18 July 2008 12:27:05 pm Sean C. Farley wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Michael B Allen wrote:
>
> *snip*
>
> > But I'll keep it in mind for the future. I don't recall why I chose
> > System V semaphores originally. I think process-shared semantics in
> > the POSIX implementations where n
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Michael B Allen wrote:
*snip*
But I'll keep it in mind for the future. I don't recall why I chose
System V semaphores originally. I think process-shared semantics in
the POSIX implementations where not mature at the time. I would love
to move away from System V semaphores.
On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 07:11:26PM -0400, Michael B Allen wrote:
> Below is a semtimedop(2) implementation that I'm using for FreeBSD. I
> was hoping someone could look it over and tell me if they think the
> implementation is sound.
> [snip semtimedop implementation that uses SIGALRM and relies o
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 8:15 PM, John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday 17 July 2008 01:42:31 pm Michael B Allen wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 10:05 AM, John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > On Saturday 12 July 2008 07:11:26 pm Michael B Allen wrote:
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >>
On Thursday 17 July 2008 01:42:31 pm Michael B Allen wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 10:05 AM, John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Saturday 12 July 2008 07:11:26 pm Michael B Allen wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Below is a semtimedop(2) implementation that I'm using for FreeBSD. I
> >> was h
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 10:05 AM, John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Saturday 12 July 2008 07:11:26 pm Michael B Allen wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Below is a semtimedop(2) implementation that I'm using for FreeBSD. I
>> was hoping someone could look it over and tell me if they think the
>> implem
On Saturday 12 July 2008 07:11:26 pm Michael B Allen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Below is a semtimedop(2) implementation that I'm using for FreeBSD. I
> was hoping someone could look it over and tell me if they think the
> implementation is sound.
>
> The code seems to work ok but when stressing the FreeBSD
On 7/13/08, Mikko Työläjärvi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Jul 2008, Michael B Allen wrote:
>
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Below is a semtimedop(2) implementation that I'm using for FreeBSD. I
> > was hoping someone could look it over and tell me if they think the
> > implementation is sound.
> >
>
On Sun, 13 Jul 2008, Michael B Allen wrote:
Hi,
Below is a semtimedop(2) implementation that I'm using for FreeBSD. I
was hoping someone could look it over and tell me if they think the
implementation is sound.
The code seems to work ok but when stressing the FreeBSD build of my app
I have man
Hi,
Below is a semtimedop(2) implementation that I'm using for FreeBSD. I
was hoping someone could look it over and tell me if they think the
implementation is sound.
The code seems to work ok but when stressing the FreeBSD build of my app
I have managed to provoke errors related to concurrency (
Hi,
Below is a semtimedop(2) implementation that I'm using for FreeBSD. I
was hoping someone could look it over and tell me if they think the
implementation is sound.
The code seems to work ok but when stressing the FreeBSD build of my app
I have managed to provoke errors related to concurrency (
12 matches
Mail list logo
