The new Arthur "two queues" Jackson* implentation of signals

[Christopher Faylor]

On Sat, Aug 23, 2003 at 06:08:20AM +1000, Robert Collins wrote:
>On Sat, 2003-08-23 at 02:05, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>However, I do have this vague feeling that this implementation might be
>>useful for signals/threads so I'll keep it, at least for now.
>
>I suspect we'll need one queue for the process, and then one queue per
>thread.  Signals masked out of some threads but not the process may be
>delivered to the process queue, and from there to the first thread that
>hasn't masked that signal out.

Yes, this is what I was thinking.  This gets into problems, though,
since if you link threads this way, then the number of threads becomes
limited to what you can wait for with WaitForMultipleObjects.  That's a
really low limit.

Maybe it's time to implement a generic "WaitForMultipleObjectsAndThenSome".

cgf