gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) (11/09/89)
In article <89312.165038SML108@PSUVM.BITNET> SML108@PSUVM.BITNET writes: >Is there a way under System V unix to make a program idle until an interrupt >condition is generated? The simplest thing is to block on a read() system call. Usually there is a natural place to do this..
les@chinet.chi.il.us (Leslie Mikesell) (11/10/89)
In article <89312.165038SML108@PSUVM.BITNET> SML108@PSUVM.BITNET writes: >Is there a way under System V unix to make a program idle until an interrupt >condition is generated ? pause(2) sleep(3) read(2) wait(2) might all be appropriate under certain conditions. Les Mikesell les@chinet.chi.il.us
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (11/10/89)
Names deleted to protect the guilty: > >Is there a way under System V unix to make a program idle until an interrupt > >condition is generated? > The simplest thing is to block on a read() system call. Usually there > is a natural place to do this.. Um, what's wrong with !pause()!? -- `-_-' Peter da Silva <peter@ficc.uu.net> <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>. 'U` -------------- +1 713 274 5180. "*Real* wizards don't whine about how they paid their dues" -- Quentin Johnson quent@atanasoff.cs.iastate.edu
SML108@PSUVM.BITNET (11/10/89)
Just a quick note to thank you all for your comments on my problem ! I now have the multi-user server I was writing up and running, and if anyone out there with as little experience as I do wants this skeelton code for setting up such a server, just drop me a line.... Thanks again guys ! Scott Le Grand aka SML108@PSUVM.BITNET or sml108@psuvm.psu.edu
gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) (11/11/89)
In article <6899@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >Um, what's wrong with !pause()!? Nothing, but often read() or accept() would be better since if it does return (non-EINTR) the daemon can proceed to do useful work without needing to be prodded by an interrupt.
andrew@alice.UUCP (Andrew Hume) (11/11/89)
In article <11575@smoke.BRL.MIL>, gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) writes: > In article <89312.165038SML108@PSUVM.BITNET> SML108@PSUVM.BITNET writes: > >Is there a way under System V unix to make a program idle until an interrupt > >condition is generated? > > The simplest thing is to block on a read() system call. Usually there > is a natural place to do this.. the pause(2) system call was designed for this. i am not positive system v still has this system call but i would think so.
cacsc243@csun.edu (11/14/89)
In article <89312.165038SML108@PSUVM.BITNET> SML108@PSUVM.BITNET writes: >Is there a way under System V unix to make a program idle until an interrupt >condition is generated? Do you mean to wait for a signal? If so, then try the pause() call (section 2). If you mean an actual HARDWARE interrupt, good luck... they're all hidden in the kernal. Scott