On 11/11/22 at 12:22pm, Andrew Gregory wrote: > On 11/10/22 at 07:01pm, Allan McRae wrote: > > On 10/11/22 18:33, Remi Gacogne wrote: > > > On 10/11/2022 03:58, Allan McRae wrote: > > > > In fact, that whole while loop looks weird to me. Do we need one > > > > here? It looks like if the read() call fails, we bail. Then only > > > > bail if we processed that call correctly? Weird... > > > > > > I believe we need the loop because we might have to process more than > > > one callback event. We want to exit the loop as soon as either the > > > read() call failed, or processing one of the even failed > > > (_alpm_sandbox_process_cb_log or _alpm_sandbox_process_cb_download > > > returning false), so we could get rid of the "done" variable by always > > > breaking indeed, since when we do break it is useless to set "done = > > > true". > > > > Great - that is the context I needed to understand the loop. I have made the > > changes. > > > > If I hear no other comments by the end of the week, I will push this. > > My comments are on the gitlab branch.
This needs a decent amount of work, can you make a merge request or send the revised patches to the list?
