Re: [PATCH 1/2] daemon: use timeout for uninterruptible poll

Kim Gybels writes: >> > In other words, you scolded Kim for something that this patch did not >> > introduce, but which was already there. > > I didn't feel scolded, just Junio raising a concern about maintainability of > the code. FWIW, I didn't mean to scold, either.

Re: [PATCH 1/2] daemon: use timeout for uninterruptible poll

On (19/04/18 06:51), Junio C Hamano wrote: > Johannes Schindelin writes: > > In other words, you scolded Kim for something that this patch did not > > introduce, but which was already there. I didn't feel scolded, just Junio raising a concern about maintainability of

Re: [PATCH 1/2] daemon: use timeout for uninterruptible poll

Johannes Schindelin writes: > Unless I am misunderstanding violently what you say, that is, in which > case I would like to ask for a clarification why this patch (which does > not change a thing unless NO_POLL is defined!) must be rejected, and while > at it, I would

Re: [PATCH 1/2] daemon: use timeout for uninterruptible poll

Hi Kim, On Sun, 15 Apr 2018, Kim Gybels wrote: > On (13/04/18 14:36), Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > > The poll provided in compat/poll.c is not interrupted by receiving > > > SIGCHLD. Use a timeout for cleaning up dead children in a timely > > > manner. > > > > Maybe say "When using this poll

Re: [PATCH 1/2] daemon: use timeout for uninterruptible poll

Hi Junio, On Mon, 16 Apr 2018, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Kim Gybels writes: > > > The poll provided in compat/poll.c is not interrupted by receiving > > SIGCHLD. Use a timeout for cleaning up dead children in a timely manner. > > I think you identified the problem and

Re: [PATCH 1/2] daemon: use timeout for uninterruptible poll

Junio C Hamano writes: > I think you identified the problem and diagnosed it correctly, but I > find that the change proposed here introduces a severe layering > violation. The code is still calling what is called poll(), which > should not have such a broken semantics. I

Re: [PATCH 1/2] daemon: use timeout for uninterruptible poll

Kim Gybels writes: > The poll provided in compat/poll.c is not interrupted by receiving > SIGCHLD. Use a timeout for cleaning up dead children in a timely manner. I think you identified the problem and diagnosed it correctly, but I find that the change proposed here

Re: [PATCH 1/2] daemon: use timeout for uninterruptible poll

On (13/04/18 14:36), Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > The poll provided in compat/poll.c is not interrupted by receiving > > SIGCHLD. Use a timeout for cleaning up dead children in a timely manner. > > Maybe say "When using this poll emulation, use a timeout ..."? I will rewrite the commit message

Re: [PATCH 1/2] daemon: use timeout for uninterruptible poll

Hi Kim, On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Kim Gybels wrote: > The poll provided in compat/poll.c is not interrupted by receiving > SIGCHLD. Use a timeout for cleaning up dead children in a timely manner. Maybe say "When using this poll emulation, use a timeout ..."? > diff --git a/daemon.c b/daemon.c >