Hi Petr and Jim,
Both of your questions and suggestions are valid. If I can paraphrase
what you wrote:
Jim: If a one second sleep fixes the problem, then why not try
1/10s or 1/2s, or sleeping 200ms multiple times before giving up?
Petr: Why sleep on the third iteration and not on the last iteration?
The challenge with this problem is that there is probably more than one
solution that would work. These same type of questions could be asked
of the original implementation that tried 5 times before giving up. For
example, why not try only 4 times, or perhaps 6 times?
My guess is that the original author found that 5 times appeared to
solve the problem and hence 5 is the number that was used.
I believe that the solution I have proposed falls into the same
category. I wished to maintain at least the same number of tries as the
original code before invoking the sleep. Then following the sleep I
wished to have at least a couple of more tries before the function would
give up. I happened to choose 9 and 3 because I liked these numbers and
the solution appears to work (my test has now run over 35,000 iterations
successfully).
Perhaps a better solution would involve both of your suggestions.
From my perspective I am interested in having this problem fixed.
Because I have been working on this problem since November and I believe
that the proposed solution does address the problem, I am inclined to
leave it at that. I think that for me, spending more time on this
problem will result in significantly diminishing returns.
Please feel free to improve upon the solution. This is one of the great
benefits of free open source software.
I will report back with the status of my test when it completes. I
anticipate that this will take at least a few more days.
Sincerely,
Curtis Gedak
_______________________________________________
parted-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/parted-devel
