X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org E5E5D3858033
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cygwin.com;
s=default; t=1636500244;
bh=I21UefKDjkyjqCyNS0JDP0KXCxrqZu8snCd93ugTTss=;
h=Date:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:
List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To:
From;
b=iDdlzglMv5r8lQ6lx0BNkfH/kfEEOT6zPTS0FOLauk+y5RFo6OHJO1PkZ5cD6+/bp
uH+/5gQ3kRHdARXm7Q569q7pwiIAqoTHeSCUamxtXVnVZ+XWgABxYHKcQi3WJySWEe
Ssh8AKjaTYQdgVjNyn3/WrlLnoNp4wDn3ogArGdw=
X-Original-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 4EC753858404
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.10.3 conssluserg-06.nifty.com 1A9NMcTN001352
X-Nifty-SrcIP: [110.4.221.123]
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2021 08:22:45 +0900
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Another pipe-related problem?
Message-Id: <20211110082245.2943cf3c2519bff24a6843b2@nifty.ne.jp>
In-Reply-To: <eb8d7d4f-d1ed-6f30-2ac3-1b24166243d9@cornell.edu>
References: <f5br1bqaj11 DOT fsf AT ecclerig DOT inf DOT ed DOT ac DOT uk>
<05c4180e-396b-4af3-ac0c-2ab8125df17e AT cornell DOT edu>
<f5bk0hh8uox DOT fsf AT ecclerig DOT inf DOT ed DOT ac DOT uk>
<eb8d7d4f-d1ed-6f30-2ac3-1b24166243d9 AT cornell DOT edu>
X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.7.0 (GTK+ 2.24.30; i686-pc-mingw32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, NICE_REPLY_A, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,
SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on
server2.sourceware.org
X-BeenThere: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: General Cygwin discussions and problem reports <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://cygwin.com/mailman/options/cygwin>,
<mailto:cygwin-request AT cygwin DOT com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://cygwin.com/pipermail/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-request AT cygwin DOT com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://cygwin.com/mailman/listinfo/cygwin>,
<mailto:cygwin-request AT cygwin DOT com?subject=subscribe>
From: Takashi Yano via Cygwin <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Reply-To: Takashi Yano <takashi DOT yano AT nifty DOT ne DOT jp>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: cygwin-bounces+archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com
Sender: "Cygwin" <cygwin-bounces+archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com>
On Tue, 9 Nov 2021 09:11:28 -0500
Ken Brown wrote:
> I'll have to reproduce the hang myself in order to test this (or maybe you could
> test it), but I now have a new guess: If the read call above keeps failing with
> EINTR, then we're in an infinite loop. This could happen because of the
> following code in fhandler_pipe::raw_read:
>
> DWORD waitret = cygwait (read_mtx, timeout);
> switch (waitret)
> {
> case WAIT_OBJECT_0:
> break;
> case WAIT_TIMEOUT:
> set_errno (EAGAIN);
> len = (size_t) -1;
> return;
> default:
> set_errno (EINTR);
> len = (size_t) -1;
> return;
> }
>
> Takashi, is EINTR really the appropriate errno in the default case? Isn't
> cygwait supposed to handle signals?
I assume cygwait() returns WAIT_SIGNALED when signalled
by SIGINT, SIGTERM, SIGTSTP, etc... In this case, EINTR
should return I think.
Is it wrong?
--
Takashi Yano <takashi DOT yano AT nifty DOT ne DOT jp>
--
Problem reports: https://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ: https://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation: https://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info: https://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple