Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!panix!.POSTED.spitfire.i.gajendra.net!not-for-mail
From: cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.programmer
Subject: Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2025 12:21:59 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC
Message-ID: <vllql7$sn6$2@reader2.panix.com>
References: <uu54la$3su5b$6@dont-email.me> <vlkoc8$2fte8$6@dont-email.me> <BcmfP.289889$aTp4.50420@fx09.iad> <677e2eb8$0$375$426a34cc@news.free.fr>
Injection-Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2025 12:21:59 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader2.panix.com; posting-host="spitfire.i.gajendra.net:166.84.136.80";
	logging-data="29414"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@panix.com"
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010)
Originator: cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross)
Bytes: 1907
Lines: 21

In article <677e2eb8$0$375$426a34cc@news.free.fr>,
Nicolas George  <nicolas$george@salle-s.org> wrote:
>Scott Lurndal, dans le message <BcmfP.289889$aTp4.50420@fx09.iad>, a
> écrit :
>> It is perfectly possible to poll() on a thread condition.   See pipe(2).
>
>It is possible to write code to wake a thread blocked in poll(). I have not
>tried to deny this. It is not possible to poll() directly on a thread
>condition. You have not disproved that.

I think it's important to define what you mean when you write,
"thread condition."  What, exactly, is that?  Perhaps you mean
a condition variable?  If so, that's true, but I fail to see
the relevance: people write multithreaded code that does IO in
multiple all the time; there are some techniques that are common
for this (Scott alluded to the so-called "pipe trick", due to
Bernstein) and some that are less common.  It may be harder or
easier depending on which techniques you employ, but it's all
doable.

	- Dan C.