Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [5/7] portage_exec cleanups

2005-10-29 Thread Brian Harring
On Sun, Oct 30, 2005 at 02:20:02AM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: > Trying to alter patches that have been split up is a PITA. Missed a var > rename > in the patch just sent. :/ Heh, nice timing on the max_fd_limit, beat me in sending it by 46 seconds :) Personally... for a change like what you're

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [5/7] portage_exec cleanups

2005-10-29 Thread Jason Stubbs
On Sunday 30 October 2005 02:17, Brian Harring wrote: > On Sun, Oct 30, 2005 at 01:40:41AM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: > > Even with the fd_pipes, the try/except block in there covers a bug that > > is hit every time it is entered. > > *cough* really doesn't surprise me. :) > > > > Looking through t

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [5/7] portage_exec cleanups

2005-10-29 Thread Jason Stubbs
Trying to alter patches that have been split up is a PITA. Missed a var rename in the patch just sent. :/ -- Jason Stubbs --- portage_exec.py.orig 2005-10-30 02:05:50.0 +0900 +++ portage_exec.py 2005-10-30 02:18:24.0 +0900 @@ -11,11 +11,8 @@ try: import resource - max_fd_limi

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [5/7] portage_exec cleanups

2005-10-29 Thread Brian Harring
On Sun, Oct 30, 2005 at 01:40:41AM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: > Even with the fd_pipes, the try/except block in there covers a bug that is > hit > every time it is entered. *cough* really doesn't surprise me. :) > > Looking through the 2.4 subprocess module (which came along after the > > mods i

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [5/7] portage_exec cleanups

2005-10-29 Thread Jason Stubbs
On Sunday 30 October 2005 01:40, Jason Stubbs wrote: > Given the threading comment, I'd be agreeable to this. However, the spawn > of tee would have to specifically close the write side of the pipe when > unknown FDs aren't closed. Is having two extra paramaters, close_fds (a > list) and close_all_

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [5/7] portage_exec cleanups

2005-10-29 Thread Jason Stubbs
On Sunday 30 October 2005 01:04, Brian Harring wrote: > On Sun, Oct 30, 2005 at 12:25:23AM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: > > By the way, this method does not allow having a pipe open to a child > > process other than stdin, stdout or stderr. > > It does; the portage_exec that is in stable is the modif

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [5/7] portage_exec cleanups

2005-10-29 Thread Brian Harring
On Sun, Oct 30, 2005 at 12:25:23AM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: > On Saturday 29 October 2005 19:56, Jason Stubbs wrote: > > All file descriptors opened by spawn() are now closed in the correct > > places. The code that closes all unnecessary descriptors via brute force is > > no longer required. > >

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [5/7] portage_exec cleanups

2005-10-29 Thread Jason Stubbs
On Saturday 29 October 2005 19:56, Jason Stubbs wrote: > All file descriptors opened by spawn() are now closed in the correct > places. The code that closes all unnecessary descriptors via brute force is > no longer required. > > I found that a file descriptor was being left open and passed around.

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [5/7] portage_exec cleanups

2005-10-29 Thread Jason Stubbs
All file descriptors opened by spawn() are now closed in the correct places. The code that closes all unnecessary descriptors via brute force is no longer required. I found that a file descriptor was being left open and passed around. However, it was definately not created in spawn(). It seems