bug-hurd
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[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



reply via email to

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