On Tue, 19 Jan 2010, Keith Mitchell wrote: >> Also if you use "retry_timeout > 0", then you don't >> execute the command even once if retry_timeout starts >> out being '0'. >> >> So, "break" seemed like the most straightforward >> and one that worked in my testing as well. > > What's really confusing is now we've got multiple conditionals and some of > them are irrelevant, or seem irrelevant. For example, we check retry_timeout > in two places, and status == 1 in two places. In particular, with your > suggested "break", it seems like line 934 could simply be converted to "while > True:" (which would follow a common paradigm for implementing "do-while" type > syntax in Python, and seems like a good idea). An additional 'break' would be > needed for "if status == 0", but I think it would make the entire code block > much more legible.
Does the updated webrev look better? http://cr.opensolaris.org/~aalok/13537-13766-13795-13979-13892/ It addresses the TAbort on a timeout as well. Alok
