mån 15 dec. 2025 kl. 23:45 skrev Branko Čibej <[email protected]>: > On 15. 12. 25 19:30, Daniel Sahlberg wrote:
… > > > > I've been thinking about the usleep() and it doesn't make sense that it > > should introduce any problems for a single threaded application. From > how I > > understand the description, it seems like something is removing stuff > from > > the linked lists during sleep. But if there is only one thread, that > thread > > should be the only one working the lists so nothing should happen. > > > > Could it be that the original poster is reusing the same context across > > multiple threads? > > > I've been thinking along those lines, yes. > > > > If so, this is not a supported use case and we should close this issue? > > > The changes on that branch aren't bad, it's nice to encapsulate > linked-list management. But if we can't reproduce the original issue, I > wouldn't release this in 1.5, because it's not tested all that much. I > would merge to trunk _after_ we cut the 1.5 branch, though. After sending, I read through the issue description and it mentions reproducing with Subversion. So I will make one last try building Serf from trunk with the usleep() call and see if something gives. > > If we decide to do it this way, then all that's left are the &*#@^Y*! > error callbacks. I think waiting is a good idea unless I can reproduce above. Let’s continue discussing the error callbacks in a separate thread! Cheers Daniel > > > -- Brane
