[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[PATCH,eglibc] Re: Questions about patches for hurdselect.c

From: Svante Signell
Subject: [PATCH,eglibc] Re: Questions about patches for hurdselect.c
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 14:51:59 +0100

On Mon, 2012-12-17 at 23:02 +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-12-17 at 20:58 +0100, Richard Braun wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 03:12:10AM +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
> > > Richards patch "if (!err && got == 0 && firstfd != -1 && (firstfd !=
> > > lastfd))" does not work, apt-get update (select-based) fails. So there
> > > will be other means to avoid the double delay bug.
> > 
> > Please don't mention work I haven't released to explain bugs in your own
> > work ... This was untested code which was later replaced. See [1].
> Sorry, but the stuff above was not my invention. I adopted  it before it
> was confirmed by you to work properly, sorry again. Still, there are
> problems for the poll case by setting the timeout to zero in the
> __io_select call. One example is ntpdate (it is now available, see the
> debian-devel ML).

As a follow-up the attached patch combines Richards zero timeout for
select()-based calls to hurdselect to also work with poll(). One example
is ntpdate. The timeout also seems to be OK, maybe further testing
needed?. This is a workaround until the split into three cases are
ready, and until the poll code is updated.


Attachment: poll_timeout.patch
Description: Text Data

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]