Re: [boost] [thread] [rfc] patch to change condition_variable and mutex error checks

Subject: Re: [boost] [thread] [rfc] patch to change condition_variable and mutex error checks
From: Brett Lentz (blentz_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-11-30 17:05:28

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 11/30/2011 04:51 PM, Peter Dimov wrote:
> Brett Lentz wrote:
>> Patch is attached.
>> 
>> I'd like to get some comments about this patch. Does it seem 
>> reasonable enough to accept? Is there a better way to handle it?
>> 
>> BOOST_VERIFY aborts on EINTR, but EINTR is usually not fatal, it
>> just means you need to try later.
> 
> You've attached the wrong patch. Anyway, POSIX specifically
> forbids pthread functions from returning EINTR.
> 

DOH!  Correct patch attached here.

Posix may forbid it, but that doesn't necessarily stop a broken
implementation from doing it. Like the original e-mail said, this was
a result of an actual customer's experience in an actual production
situation.

While I'd like to see the patch accepted, it would be equally valid to
just say that it's not a problem boost should be solving, and that I
need to file a bug with the OS vendor that they shouldn't be violating
POSIX like this. ;-)

- -- 

- ---Brett.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJO1qioAAoJEEAzW/nB31+3kjYH/3pCgE37HZFr/WB6uW9QhQrS
Iip2xPBbW7AbwP5Xe24AhBwYwK//htiAhpJrrkYayRjrbhCmFkaax2/CCbiYte0B
YFrqa3NJh1KqSm4ulBFCr9Pw3PGolcN5ck2j4X/wlDHCdQWQAE1dOPoK4v8Wnn/5
LqjFMpbrXCVcE4dB4BrYGyZXRKnNFs0eBAW8bE2bHgZK57ES1GAJpGJQ4FY2ebpp
4XU862D/eN7s7A2fgcp9llQ9ooaz2iAkip3HIQWG1fuTNrsdTw8xD0rBUHNMhzoQ
mfjHB9QqvtIrYtMFJS4j1LkkoOXhvHlcc7+yIvnUByEPK59STWloyXg1yE2N964=
=1esn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----