[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH,eglibc] Re: Questions about patches for hurdselect.c
From: |
Samuel Thibault |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH,eglibc] Re: Questions about patches for hurdselect.c |
Date: |
Mon, 7 Jan 2013 22:21:23 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.21+34 (58baf7c9f32f) (2010-12-30) |
Svante Signell, le Tue 18 Dec 2012 14:51:59 +0100, a écrit :
> 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.
At last I find the time looking through my mbox again. Only to find
that this has already been dealt with: the issue you were trying to
solve is interruptability of the __mach_msg call, for which I have
submitted a patch to libc-alpha the other day.
Samuel
[Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- Re: [PATCH,eglibc] Re: Questions about patches for hurdselect.c,
Samuel Thibault <=