site_archiver@lists.apple.com Delivered-To: darwin-kernel@lists.apple.com On Mon, 26 Nov 2007, Terry Lambert wrote: Part of the quote was missing: <quote> Asynchronous cancelability is explicitly NOT required to allow a cancel to interrupt a thread blocked at a cancellation point in the "shall occur" table. That would defeat the entire purpose of cancellation. </quote> As an outside observer, I can see this clearly as a bug; it is a rather obvious omission of POSIX-defined behavior. I don't see Per as belaboring his point too much or that he is trying to get it more attention. It seems to me he is just responding to the defensiveness that you and others have exhibited about this bug, as if the bug might be dismissed as not really being a bug. I am sometimes guilty of having this attitude myself, but it is much easier to observe in others :-) At any rate, I hope you all had a good vacation - I'm sure it was well-deserved. -- DE _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Darwin-kernel mailing list (Darwin-kernel@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/darwin-kernel/site_archiver%40lists.a... That interpretation of async vs. deferred renders async practically useless, which I doubt is the intent. As to when things have to be fixed or not, that's lawyer and release schedule territory, way above my pay grade, and we do not discuss release schedules here, ever. Certification from my perspective has to do with passing the requisite tests. If a test failure happens because a new test is added, we will in general fix it or request a PIN (like both we and Tru64 UNIX got for AST based signals already) ASAP. Belaboring your point here isn't winning your bug any more attention than it's already getting. Give us a break, we are all just getting back from vacation. This email sent to site_archiver@lists.apple.com