On Fri, 2013-02-15 at 19:59 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
Svante Signell, le Fri 15 Feb 2013 10:54:44 +0100, a écrit :
So it's ii-1 whose array position gets _hurd_port_free()d. array
position ii does *not* get _hurd_port_free()d, while
/* If one descriptor is bogus, mark
Svante Signell, le Mon 18 Feb 2013 17:13:10 +0100, a écrit :
This does _hurd_port_free() array position ii, even if it is actually
undefined since _hurd_port_get returning MACH_PORT_NULL means it didn't
work (and thus didn't fill the array position).
So the correct change would be to
On Fri, 2013-02-15 at 02:05 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
BTW, I can understand the kind of frustration you can have of seeing
your work being thrown away and rewritten. Well, that's life,
software is a lot about frustration, you'll have to get a thick head.
As I said, it's no big deal from
On Fri, 2013-02-15 at 09:53 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
Svante Signell, le Fri 15 Feb 2013 08:39:39 +0100, a écrit :
On Fri, 2013-02-15 at 00:31 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
Svante Signell, le Fri 15 Feb 2013 00:18:16 +0100, a écrit :
I don't understand what you mean. What delay
On Fri, 2013-02-15 at 00:58 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
Svante Signell, le Fri 15 Feb 2013 00:37:39 +0100, a écrit :
No, it doesn't. There are quite a few ways in which it will break.
if (d[i].io_port == MACH_PORT_NULL)
{
Svante Signell, le Fri 15 Feb 2013 10:32:26 +0100, a écrit :
On Fri, 2013-02-15 at 09:53 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
Svante Signell, le Fri 15 Feb 2013 08:39:39 +0100, a écrit :
On Fri, 2013-02-15 at 00:31 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
Svante Signell, le Fri 15 Feb 2013 00:18:16 +0100,
Svante Signell, le Fri 15 Feb 2013 10:54:44 +0100, a écrit :
I did understand the code, but maybe the change went wrong. I would
really appreciate if you could help me to understand what's the problem
with the new code.
Old code: (cleaning previously allocated ports when one FD is bogus and
Svante Signell, le Fri 15 Feb 2013 08:25:59 +0100, a écrit :
The mail has an RFC in the
title. I did not claim that the rewrite was completed, did I?
Yes, but for this kind of very complex code, it was way faster to just
rewrite the thing than go through a review/fix ping-pong which would
have
Svante Signell, le Wed 13 Feb 2013 07:24:46 +0100, a écrit :
Problem is that he did not give any hints on _how_ to make the
rewrite. If introducing the SELECT_ERROR had been discussed (or
allowed to introduce) my solution would have been different too.
As I mentioned yesterday, I couldn't have
On Thu, 2013-02-14 at 23:49 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
Svante Signell, le Wed 13 Feb 2013 07:24:46 +0100, a écrit :
Problem is that he did not give any hints on _how_ to make the
rewrite. If introducing the SELECT_ERROR had been discussed (or
allowed to introduce) my solution would have
Svante Signell, le Fri 15 Feb 2013 00:18:16 +0100, a écrit :
Well, I might say I have some C programming experience
some is not enough to properly deal with something as complex as
select :)
Svante Signell, le Wed 13 Feb 2013 06:51:29 +0100, a écrit :
On Wed, 2013-02-13 at 01:53 +0100,
On Fri, 2013-02-15 at 00:31 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
Having a separate hurddoselect.c with a function containing the shared
code would have both factorization and hierarchy, but the semantic of
the function gets tricky, and it'd be easy to miss thing.
Select/poll *are* complex, you
Svante Signell, le Fri 15 Feb 2013 00:37:39 +0100, a écrit :
No, it doesn't. There are quite a few ways in which it will break.
Well (as you say) I'm a newbie C programmer, tell me where the bugs
are ;-)
As I already said, there are too many than I want to even spend time
describing any.
BTW, I can understand the kind of frustration you can have of seeing
your work being thrown away and rewritten. Well, that's life,
software is a lot about frustration, you'll have to get a thick head.
Samuel
On Fri, 2013-02-15 at 00:58 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
Svante Signell, le Fri 15 Feb 2013 00:37:39 +0100, a écrit :
No, it doesn't. There are quite a few ways in which it will break.
Well (as you say) I'm a newbie C programmer, tell me where the bugs
are ;-)
As I already said,
On Fri, 2013-02-15 at 00:31 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
Svante Signell, le Fri 15 Feb 2013 00:18:16 +0100, a écrit :
I don't understand what you mean. What delay are you talking about?
The only delay in by branch is the delay requested by the user.
Well, with my code I need a
On Wed, 2013-02-13 at 08:46 +0100, Richard Braun wrote:
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 07:24:46AM +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
We warned you several times about making your changes as little
intrusive as possible for easier review. Since you seem to be unable to
understand what that implies,
On Wed, 2013-02-13 at 09:07 +0100, Richard Braun wrote:
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 06:51:29AM +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
- the rewritten code is faster than the old one. In the old code no
delay is needed for the POLL case but is for the rewritten code. i.e.
it's faster. (irrespective of
(I will reply on the other items this evening)
Svante Signell, le Wed 13 Feb 2013 06:51:29 +0100, a écrit :
- you cannot commit this code unless I agree to sign the copyright
papers for libc (which I of course will when asked for). This is a
derived work of mine. Otherwise it has to stay as a
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 06:51:29AM +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
- the rewritten code is faster than the old one. In the old code no
delay is needed for the POLL case but is for the rewritten code. i.e.
it's faster. (irrespective of moving timeouts to the server side or not)
I highly doubt it
Svante Signell svante.sign...@gmail.com writes:
On Wed, 2013-02-13 at 09:07 +0100, Richard Braun wrote:
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 06:51:29AM +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
[…]
- you cannot commit this code unless I agree to sign the copyright
papers for libc (which I of course will when asked
On Wed, 2013-02-13 at 09:32 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
(I will reply on the other items this evening)
Svante Signell, le Wed 13 Feb 2013 06:51:29 +0100, a écrit :
- you cannot commit this code unless I agree to sign the copyright
papers for libc (which I of course will when asked for).
Svante Signell, le Wed 13 Feb 2013 10:22:37 +0100, a écrit :
On Wed, 2013-02-13 at 09:32 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
(I will reply on the other items this evening)
Svante Signell, le Wed 13 Feb 2013 06:51:29 +0100, a écrit :
- you cannot commit this code unless I agree to sign the
On Wed, 2013-02-13 at 09:29 +, Ivan Shmakov wrote:
Svante Signell svante.sign...@gmail.com writes:
On Wed, 2013-02-13 at 09:07 +0100, Richard Braun wrote:
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 06:51:29AM +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
[…]
- you cannot commit this code unless I agree to sign the
Samuel Thibault, le Wed 13 Feb 2013 10:45:56 +0100, a écrit :
here, in the rewritten version even the algorithm itself is completely
different.
Which was actually the whole motivation for the rewrite, rather than
basing on the available implementation.
Samuel
On Wed, 2013-02-13 at 10:38 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
Svante Signell, le Wed 13 Feb 2013 10:22:37 +0100, a écrit :
On Wed, 2013-02-13 at 09:32 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
Anyway, until next time no copyright assignment is needed...
If you consider working on libc again (and actually
Hi!
On Wed, 13 Feb 2013 10:48:13 +0100, Svante Signell svante.sign...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wed, 2013-02-13 at 10:38 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
If you consider working on libc again (and actually it's also true for
hurd and gnumach), you should probably still assign copyright already,
so
On Tue, 2013-02-12 at 00:40 +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
On Thu, 2013-01-24 at 13:58 +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
Ok, here is the not yet complete patch for hurdselect.c. An explanation
will follow tomorrow, too late to get everything written down correctly
now. The patch is longer than the
Svante Signell, le Tue 12 Feb 2013 09:09:25 +0100, a écrit :
Attached is a patch wrt the latest patch (step2) on January 24 2013. The
indentation is different, therefore the diff blocks are a little large
(but easier to read). Hopefully this is better. Including also the
resulting file
On Tue, 2013-02-12 at 22:55 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
Svante Signell, le Tue 12 Feb 2013 09:09:25 +0100, a écrit :
Attached is a patch wrt the latest patch (step2) on January 24 2013. The
indentation is different, therefore the diff blocks are a little large
(but easier to read).
Svante Signell, le Tue 12 Feb 2013 23:46:00 +0100, a écrit :
- some minor tweaks will still be made to be mor POSIX consistent.
It'd be way better to keep these as separate patches. That's how we'll
have to submit them to libc-alpha anyway...
Samuel
Alle martedì 12 febbraio 2013, Svante Signell ha scritto:
* change the FD_SETSIZE upper value check to larger than or equal
from larger than.
(from POSIX definition of select:
http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009604499/functions/select.html
)
It's
On Tue, 2013-02-12 at 23:50 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
Svante Signell, le Tue 12 Feb 2013 23:46:00 +0100, a écrit :
- some minor tweaks will still be made to be mor POSIX consistent.
It'd be way better to keep these as separate patches. That's how we'll
have to submit them to libc-alpha
Svante Signell, le Tue 12 Feb 2013 23:55:04 +0100, a écrit :
On Tue, 2013-02-12 at 23:50 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
Svante Signell, le Tue 12 Feb 2013 23:46:00 +0100, a écrit :
- some minor tweaks will still be made to be mor POSIX consistent.
It'd be way better to keep these as
On Tue, 2013-02-12 at 23:52 +0100, Pino Toscano wrote:
Alle martedì 12 febbraio 2013, Svante Signell ha scritto:
* change the FD_SETSIZE upper value check to larger than or equal
from larger than.
(from POSIX definition of select:
On Wed, 2013-02-13 at 00:03 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
Svante Signell, le Tue 12 Feb 2013 23:55:04 +0100, a écrit :
On Tue, 2013-02-12 at 23:50 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
Svante Signell, le Tue 12 Feb 2013 23:46:00 +0100, a écrit :
- some minor tweaks will still be made to be mor
Svante Signell, le Wed 13 Feb 2013 00:04:33 +0100, a écrit :
Then you have to convince the Linux man page and the python3.2
developers too. From python3.2:
./Include/fileobject.h: #define _PyIsSelectable_fd(FD) (((FD) = 0)
((FD) FD_SETSIZE))
That's easy: point them to the latest version of
Svante Signell, le Wed 13 Feb 2013 00:06:10 +0100, a écrit :
On Wed, 2013-02-13 at 00:03 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
Svante Signell, le Tue 12 Feb 2013 23:55:04 +0100, a écrit :
On Tue, 2013-02-12 at 23:50 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
Svante Signell, le Tue 12 Feb 2013 23:46:00 +0100,
Alle mercoledì 13 febbraio 2013, Svante Signell ha scritto:
On Tue, 2013-02-12 at 23:52 +0100, Pino Toscano wrote:
Alle martedì 12 febbraio 2013, Svante Signell ha scritto:
* change the FD_SETSIZE upper value check to larger than or
equal
from larger than.
(from POSIX
On Wed, 2013-02-13 at 00:07 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
Svante Signell, le Wed 13 Feb 2013 00:06:10 +0100, a écrit :
On Wed, 2013-02-13 at 00:03 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
Svante Signell, le Tue 12 Feb 2013 23:55:04 +0100, a écrit :
On Tue, 2013-02-12 at 23:50 +0100, Samuel Thibault
Pino Toscano, le Wed 13 Feb 2013 00:08:21 +0100, a écrit :
Alle mercoledì 13 febbraio 2013, Svante Signell ha scritto:
On Tue, 2013-02-12 at 23:52 +0100, Pino Toscano wrote:
Alle martedì 12 febbraio 2013, Svante Signell ha scritto:
* change the FD_SETSIZE upper value check to larger
Svante Signell, le Wed 13 Feb 2013 00:12:57 +0100, a écrit :
On Wed, 2013-02-13 at 00:07 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
Svante Signell, le Wed 13 Feb 2013 00:06:10 +0100, a écrit :
On Wed, 2013-02-13 at 00:03 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
Svante Signell, le Tue 12 Feb 2013 23:55:04 +0100,
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 11:50:21PM +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
Svante Signell, le Tue 12 Feb 2013 23:46:00 +0100, a écrit :
- some minor tweaks will still be made to be mor POSIX consistent.
It'd be way better to keep these as separate patches. That's how we'll
have to submit them to
On Wed, 2013-02-13 at 00:08 +0100, Pino Toscano wrote:
Alle mercoledì 13 febbraio 2013, Svante Signell ha scritto:
On Tue, 2013-02-12 at 23:52 +0100, Pino Toscano wrote:
Alle martedì 12 febbraio 2013, Svante Signell ha scritto:
* change the FD_SETSIZE upper value check to larger than or
Alle mercoledì 13 febbraio 2013, Samuel Thibault ha scritto:
Pino Toscano, le Wed 13 Feb 2013 00:08:21 +0100, a écrit :
Alle mercoledì 13 febbraio 2013, Svante Signell ha scritto:
On Tue, 2013-02-12 at 23:52 +0100, Pino Toscano wrote:
Alle martedì 12 febbraio 2013, Svante Signell ha
Svante Signell, le Wed 13 Feb 2013 00:17:21 +0100, a écrit :
The behavior of these macros is undefined if the fd argument is less
than 0 or greater than or equal to FD_SETSIZE, or if fd is not a valid
file descriptor, or if any of the arguments are expressions with
side-effects.
Ok, so
Alle mercoledì 13 febbraio 2013, Svante Signell ha scritto:
On Wed, 2013-02-13 at 00:08 +0100, Pino Toscano wrote:
Alle mercoledì 13 febbraio 2013, Svante Signell ha scritto:
On Tue, 2013-02-12 at 23:52 +0100, Pino Toscano wrote:
Alle martedì 12 febbraio 2013, Svante Signell ha scritto:
Then you have to convince the Linux man page and the python3.2
developers too. From python3.2:
./Include/fileobject.h: #define _PyIsSelectable_fd(FD) (((FD) = 0)
((FD) FD_SETSIZE))
The fd value itself has to be FD_SETSIZE, since indexing is zero-origin;
so that code is right. The nfds
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 12:12:57AM +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
What a pity, I spent a very long time doing this rewrite, and to make
the code more readable (at least in my opinion). Back to spaghetti^Wold
style code then.
We warned you several times about making your changes as little
Svante Signell, le Tue 12 Feb 2013 23:46:00 +0100, a écrit :
On Tue, 2013-02-12 at 22:55 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
Svante Signell, le Tue 12 Feb 2013 09:09:25 +0100, a écrit :
Attached is a patch wrt the latest patch (step2) on January 24 2013. The
indentation is different, therefore
Samuel Thibault, le Wed 13 Feb 2013 01:42:53 +0100, a écrit :
I have rewritten your changes as seen below,
and pushed to our glibc repository. This is all above Richard's
io_select_timeout changes.
Samuel
On Wed, 2013-02-13 at 01:53 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
Samuel Thibault, le Wed 13 Feb 2013 01:42:53 +0100, a écrit :
I have rewritten your changes as seen below,
and pushed to our glibc repository. This is all above Richard's
io_select_timeout changes.
Where? I cannot find it. Its not
On Wed, 2013-02-13 at 00:30 +0100, Richard Braun wrote:
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 12:12:57AM +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
What a pity, I spent a very long time doing this rewrite, and to make
the code more readable (at least in my opinion). Back to spaghetti^Wold
style code then.
We warned
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 07:24:46AM +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
We warned you several times about making your changes as little
intrusive as possible for easier review. Since you seem to be unable to
understand what that implies, it's only natural Samuel no longer wastes
time on this and
54 matches
Mail list logo
