[Top][All Lists]

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

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

From: Svante Signell
Subject: Re: [PATCH,eglibc] Re: Questions about patches for hurdselect.c
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2012 00:03:17 +0100

ping, any comments?

On Thu, 2012-12-20 at 01:12 +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-12-18 at 14:51 +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
> > 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:
> ...
> > 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.
> Now the 3-way split of hurdselect is updated, see the attached patch.
> Hopefully the trivial faults are solved by now and we can proceed with
> the poll-specific changes towards POSIX compliance. Attached is also
> some test code to check the functionality of the patched version,.That
> can be checked with the poll/select patches as proposed previously (and
> with the buggy current version).
> Of course the #if 1 case has to be resolved, My findings is that they
> are needed (with the new code, not the old) until a safe timeout is
> communicated for the file descriptors to be ready in the poll case.
> Thanks and Merry Christmas,
> Svante (note my change of ISP mail supplier) 
> Comments and feedbacks are of course encouraged :-)

reply via email to

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