X-Recipient:	archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-SWARE-Spam-Status:	No, hits=0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD
X-Spam-Check-By:	sourceware.org
X-Spam-CYBERTRENCH-Report:	SpamAssassin 3.2.1-gr2 (2007-05-02) on cybertrench.com hits: -0.7 of 7.0 Bayes: memorize=no score=0.5000 * -1.8 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP * 0.0 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 40 to 60% * [score: 0.5000] * 1.1 DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS RBL: Envelope sender listed in bl.open-whois.org.
X-Spam-CYBERTRENCH-Level:	-0.7
X-cybertrench.com-virus-scan:	clean
Date:	Tue, 13 Jul 2010 09:07:55 +0200
From:	Corvus Corax <corvuscorax AT cybertrench DOT com>
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: pthread_mutex_lock doesn't interrupt
Message-ID:	<20100713090755.31f0664f@CorvusMC.home>
In-Reply-To:	<AANLkTik6e4W5bE2BcsKDIrjtFY4qXwVOWq8uFFgytJKW@mail.gmail.com>
References:	<AANLkTimmJ1HNGW1fJMhvHg9a3Pgk1PDbR2rubnexczIv AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <20100712230519 DOT 4e871a91 AT CorvusMC DOT home>
References:	<AANLkTimmJ1HNGW1fJMhvHg9a3Pgk1PDbR2rubnexczIv AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <20100712230519 DOT 4e871a91 AT CorvusMC DOT home>
In-Reply-To:	<AANLkTik6e4W5bE2BcsKDIrjtFY4qXwVOWq8uFFgytJKW@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version:	1.0
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id:	<cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Unsubscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

Hi

I did read your other response, regarding the signal developer being on
vacation. I'm sending this just for reference, since I had already
looked it up anyway :)

Andy wrote:

> Have you got chapter and verse from the POSIX standard on that? By
> 'interrupt' do you mean SIGINT or any signal? Is it possible that the
> signal is just being deferred and then subsumed by later signals?
>=20
> Andy

PTHREAD_MUTEX_LOCK() has been defined in IEEE POSIX 1003.1c.

=46rom the POSIX Programmers Manual:

http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/pthread_mutex_lock=
.html

> If  a  signal is delivered to a thread waiting for a mutex, upon
> return from the signal handler the thread shall resume waiting
> for  the  mutex as if it was not interrupted.

As you can see from the test cases (attached to the other mail)
only one type of signal (SIGUSR1) is repeatedly sent, but not handled.

I am not sure if I understood what you mean by "deferred".

It is possible (though in our case irrelevant) that the cygwin code
WOULD still call the signal handler AFTER pthread_mutex_lock() returns.
However in the FreeRTOS code this never happens, since the failure of
executing the signal handler even on repeated signals results in the
mutex in question not being released -> deadlock!

(Another thread holds the mutex but waits for the signal handler
 to acknowledge the signal reception before releasing it)

regards

Corvus

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

- Raw text -