rename open_issues.mdwn to service_solahart_jakarta_selatan__082122541663.mdwn

1 files changed, 0 insertions, 139 deletions

diff --git a/open_issues/libpthread_cancellation_points.mdwn b/open_issues/libpthread_cancellation_points.mdwn
deleted file mode 100644
index 48f1acf5..00000000
--- a/open_issues/libpthread_cancellation_points.mdwn
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,139 +0,0 @@
-[[!meta copyright="Copyright © 2013 Free Software Foundation, Inc."]]
-
-[[!meta license="""[[!toggle id="license" text="GFDL 1.2+"]][[!toggleable
-id="license" text="Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this
-document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or
-any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant
-Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.  A copy of the license
-is included in the section entitled [[GNU Free Documentation
-License|/fdl]]."]]"""]]
-
-[[!meta title="cancellation points are not cancelling threads"]]
-
-[[!tag open_issue_libpthread]]
-
-    #include <pthread.h>
-    #include <stdio.h>
-    #include <sys/select.h>
-    #include <unistd.h>
-    
-    void *f (void*foo)
-    {
-        char buf[128];
-	//pthread_setcanceltype (PTHREAD_CANCEL_ASYNCHRONOUS, NULL);
-	while (1) {
-	    read (0, buf, sizeof(buf));
-	}
-    }
-    int main (void) {
-        pthread_t t;
-	pthread_create (&t, NULL, f, NULL);
-	sleep (1);
-	pthread_cancel (t);
-	pthread_join (t, NULL);
-	exit(0);
-    }
-
-read() is not behaving as a cancellation point, only setting the cancel
-type to asynchronous permits this testcase to terminate. We do have the
-pthread_setcanceltype glibc/libpthread hook in the forward structure, but we are
-not using it: the LIBC_CANCEL_ASYNC macros are void, and we're not using them in
-the mig msg call either.
-
-
-# Provenance
-
-## IRC, OFTC, #debian-hurd, 2013-04-15
-
-    <paravoid> so, let me say a few things about the bug in the first place
-    <paravoid> the package builds and runs a test suite
-    <paravoid> the second test in the test suite blocks forever
-    <paravoid> a blocked pthread_join is what I see
-    <paravoid> I'm unsure why
-    <paravoid> have you seen anything like it before?
-    <youpi> whenever the thread doesn't actually terminate, sure
-    <youpi> what is the thread usually blocked on when you cancel it?
-    <paravoid> this is a hurd-specific issue
-    <paravoid> works on all other arches
-    <youpi> could be just that all other archs have more relaxed behavior
-    <youpi> thus the question of what exactly is supposed to be happening
-    <youpi> apparently it is inside a select?
-    <youpi> it seems select is not cancellable here
-    <pinotree> wasn't the patch you sent?
-    <youpi> no, my patch was about signals
-    <youpi> not cancellation
-    <pinotree> k
-    <youpi> (even if that could be related, of course)
-    <paravoid> how did you see that?
-    <paravoid> what's the equivalent of strace?
-    <youpi> thread 3 is inside _hurd_select
-    <paravoid> thread 1 is blocked on join
-    <paravoid> but the code is
-    <paravoid>     if(gdmaps->reload_thread_spawned) {
-    <paravoid>         pthread_cancel(gdmaps->reload_tid);
-    <paravoid>         pthread_join(gdmaps->reload_tid, NULL);
-    <paravoid>     }
-    <paravoid> so cancel should have killed the thread
-    <youpi> cancelling a thread is a complex matter
-    <youpi> there are cancellation points
-    <youpi> e.g. a thread performing while(1); can't be cancelled
-    <paravoid> thread 3 is just a libev event loop
-    <youpi> yes, "just" calling poll, the most complex system call of unix :)
-    <youpi> paravoid: anyway, don't look for a bug in your program, it's most
-      likely a bug in glibc, thanks for the report
-    <paravoid> I think it all boils down to a problem cancelling a thread in
-      poll()
-    <youpi> yes
-    <youpi> paravoid: ok, actually with the latest libc it does work
-    <paravoid> oh?
-    <youpi> where latest = not uploaded yet :/
-    <paravoid> did you test this on exodar?
-    <youpi> pinotree: that's the libpthread_cancellation.diff I guess
-    <paravoid> because I commented out the join :)
-    <youpi> paravoid:  in the root, yes
-    <youpi> well, I tried my own program
-    <paravoid> oh, okay
-    <youpi> which is indeed hanging inside select (or just read) in the chroot
-    <youpi> but not in the root
-    <pinotree> ah, richard's patch
-    <paravoid> url?
-    <youpi> I've installed the build-dep in the root, if you want to try
-    <paravoid> strange that root is newer than the chroot :)
-    <youpi> paravoid: it's the usual eglibc debian source
-    <paravoid> tried in root, still fails
-    <youpi> could you keep the process running?
-    <paravoid> done
-    <youpi> Mmm, but the thread running gdmaps_reload_thread never set the
-      cancel type to async?
-    <youpi> that said I guess read and select are supposed to be cancellation
-      points
-    <youpi> thus cancel_deferred should be working, but they are not
-    <youpi> it seems it's cancellation points which have just not been
-      implemented
-    <youpi> (they happen to be one of the most obscure things in posix)
-
-
-## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-04-15
-
-    <youpi> but yes, there is still an issue, with PTHREAD_CANCEL_DEFERRED
-    <youpi> how calls like read() or select() are supposed to test
-      cancellation?
-    <pinotree> iirc there are the LIBC_CANCEL_* macros in glibc
-    <pinotree> eg sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/pread.c
-    <youpi> yes
-    <youpi> but in our libpthredaD?
-    <pinotree> could it be we lack the libpthread → glibc bridge of
-      cancellation stuff?
-    <youpi> we do have pthread_setcancelstate/type forwards
-    <youpi> but it seems the default LIBC_CANCEL_ASYNC is void
-    <pinotree> i mean, so when you cancel a thread, you can get that cancel
-      status in libc proper, just like it seems done with LIBC_CANCEL_* macros
-      and nptl
-    <youpi> as I said, the bridge is there
-    <youpi> we're just not using it in glibc
-    <youpi> I'm writing an open_issues page
-
-
-### IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-04-16
-
-    <braunr> youpi: yes, we said some time ago that it was lacking