Readit NewsIn that case, can't you exploit the inherent symmetry in the design here to only route a quarter of your connectors and then mirror/rotate the result for the other one? Or, if you have a X*X matrix, route one size minus the corners and replicate to the other sides?
Also, with such a huge connection board, it smells a NIH issue here. I think you'd better serialize the IO to a bus (whatever) and few lines and perform the connection in software (in a GoWin FPGA for example, both extremely cheap and quite powerful). Just think of the harness you'll need to build to fit the connectors in. The obvious routing bugs, and so on. Any maintenance will be a nightmare, if you need to swap 2 pins on a connector or re-run the routing.
> If we could know that no signal handler is ran between the flag check and the syscall, then we’d be safe.
If you're willing to write assembly, you can accomplish this without rseq. I got it working many years ago on a bunch of platforms. [1] It's similar to what they did in this article: define a "critical region" between the initial flag check and the actual syscall. If the signal happens here, ensure the instruction pointer gets adjusted in such a way that the syscall is bypassed and EINTR returned immediately. But it doesn't need any special kernel support that's Linux-only and didn't exist at the time, just async signal handlers.
(rseq is a very cool facility, btw, just not necessary for this.)
[1] Here's the Linux/x86_64 syscall wrapper: https://github.com/scottlamb/sigsafe/blob/master/src/x86_64-... and the signal handler: https://github.com/scottlamb/sigsafe/blob/master/src/x86_64-...