RFC: API change for sema_timedwait

[Robert Watson]

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004, John Polstra wrote:

> The reason I care about this is because I'd like to add new functions
> sema_wait_sig() and sema_timedwait_sig() which can be interrupted by a
> signal.  Then sema_timedwait_sig could fail in two different ways: as a
> result of a timeout or as a result of a signal.  If these functions
> returned proper errno values on failure, it would be easy to distinguish
> between the two failure cases. 
> 
> This change would also make the return values of sema_timedwait,
> sema_wait_sig, and sema_timedwait_sig consistent with the analogous
> condition variable operations cv_timedwait, cv_wait_sig, and
> cv_timedwait_sig and with tsleep and msleep. 
> 
> Does this change sound OK to you folks? 

This sounds entirely sensible to me.  Make sure to update the man page
:-).

Robert N M Watson             FreeBSD Core Team, TrustedBSD Projects
robert at fledge.watson.org      Senior Research Scientist, McAfee Research