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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
>
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.
Signed-off-by: Kim Gybels
---
daemon.c | 10 --
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/daemon.c
10 matches
Mail list logo