3 ms·
What does that have to do with anything? You wouldn't use WFMO to implement a futex in Windows. And regardless of anything in Linux, defending WFMO seems like a
by dingu 7y ago
What does that have to do with anything? You wouldn't use WFMO to implement a futex in Windows. And regardless of anything in Linux, defending WFMO seems like a strange hill to die on. It's not a great API.
I'm calling your bluff too. Which one of the supported waitable handles in Windows are just addresses with no other state? I'm more surprised because they all need an access mask at a minimum, and I thought they all involve an ObCreateObject, even a Mutant... these dusty corners of the kernel are visible through the DDK. Anyway, I would be glad to be shown wrong.
- jdsully 7y agoI’m not sure why theres such animosity in your replies. The goal here is not to defend windows but to point out that handles need not aways refer to kernel objects. It would be possible to provide an orthogonal handle based API even if windows doesn’t always live up to that ideal. Ultimately it seems these systems are just too big to maintain a cohesive design - but it is still an ideal to aspire to.