This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
On 11/16/2016 04:20 PM, Zack Weinberg wrote:
On 11/16/2016 10:11 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:On 11/14/2016 07:29 PM, Zack Weinberg wrote:On 11/14/2016 12:44 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:This patch switches back to the ssize_t return time. This goes against Theodore Ts'o preference, but seems to reflect the consensus from the largery community.I still don't think this function should be a cancellation point.I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this matter.I am seriously considering escalating my disagreement here to a formal objection. I would like to know why you think it is NECESSARY - not merely convenient or consistent with other stuff - for this function to be a cancellation point.
It's necessary if you ever want to cancel a hanging getrandom in a context where you cannot install a signal handler (so that you can trigger EINTR when getrandom is stuck).
I really don't understand why cancellation points are widely considered as evil. Most code does not use cancellation in a correct way, and it will not improve if we simply stop adding new cancellation points. Furthermore, it's easy to make a cancellation point go away (just switch the cancel state around the call), but at least in library code, it is impossible to introduce cancellation into a system call where the wrapper does not support it (because you cannot fake your own version of cancellation with a do-nothing signal handler).
Thanks, Florian
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |