[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150803200504.GA1903@newbook>
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 13:05:05 -0700
From: Isaac Dunham <ibid.ag@...il.com>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: New optimized normal-type mutex?
On Mon, Aug 03, 2015 at 09:43:27PM +0200, Jens Gustedt wrote:
> Am Montag, den 03.08.2015, 19:36 +0300 schrieb Alexander Monakov:
> > > Now let us try to figure out what happens in the case that started
> > > this new discussion, namely that there is so much contention such that
> > > the probability of an EAGAIN-failure of the mutex call increases.
> >
> > As long as we're talking in terms of futexes, it's EWOULDBLOCK, not EAGAIN.
>
> Hm, yes I meant futex, but it really is EAGAIN that I observe. So the
> man page seems out of sync with reality.
EWOULDBLOCK and EAGAIN are the same value (11), as specifically allowed
by POSIX.
However, there are certain uses where one is specified by the standard,
and others where the other is specified.
Thanks,
Isaac Dunham
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
