Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> writes:

> We end up calling select() without any bit set in fds, so it would
> become micro-sleep of select_timeout in such a case, but as far as I
> can see, the existing code either
>  * does not select() and keeps polling step_active_slots() without
>    delay, when curl_timeout gives a 0 return value; or
>  * sets 50ms timeout or whatever negative value derived from
>    curl_timeout when the returned value is not 0 nor -1.
> Is the symptom that select(), when given a negative timeout and no
> fd to wake it, sleeps forever (or "loooong time, taking that negative
> value as if it is a large unsigned long") or something?


What I am trying to get at are (1) three line description I can put
in the release notes for this fix when it is merged to the
maintenance track, and (2) a feel of how often this happens and how
bad the damage is.

The latter helps us judge if this "do the normal thing, but if in a
rare case where we do not find any fds, patch it up to proceed" is a
better approach over your original.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to