On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 3:37 AM, Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 29/06/2017 18:37, Alistair Francis wrote:
>>> Hmm, I think it's possible, poll_msgs is true here.
>> poll_msgs?
>>
>> If nhandles is 0 then we have already entered an earlier if statement
>> and set ready to either WAIT_FAILED or WAIT_TIMEOUT in which case we
>> can't enter this part of the if statement.
>
> No, that's not correct. The code is:
>
> if (poll_msgs) {
> /* Wait for either messages or handles
> * -> Use MsgWaitForMultipleObjectsEx
> */
> ready = MsgWaitForMultipleObjectsEx(nhandles, handles, timeout,
> QS_ALLINPUT, MWMO_ALERTABLE);
>
> if (ready == WAIT_FAILED) {
> gchar *emsg = g_win32_error_message(GetLastError());
> g_warning("MsgWaitForMultipleObjectsEx failed: %s", emsg);
> g_free(emsg);
> }
> } else if (nhandles == 0) {
> /* No handles to wait for, just the timeout */
> if (timeout == INFINITE) {
> ready = WAIT_FAILED;
> } else {
> SleepEx(timeout, TRUE);
> ready = WAIT_TIMEOUT;
> }
>
> You can have poll_msgs == TRUE && nhandles == 0. This happens for
>
> GPollFD fds[1] = { .fd = G_WIN32_MSG_HANDLE, .events = G_IO_IN };
> g_poll(fds, 1, timeout);
Ah. Yeah good point.
Ok, I'll respin the series without this patch then.
Thanks,
Alistair
>
> Thanks,
>
> Paolo
>
