On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 3:37 AM, Paolo Bonzini 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
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
On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 6:32 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 28/06/2017 01:57, Alistair Francis wrote:
>> There is no way nhandles can be zero in this section so that part of the
>> if statement will always be false. Let's just remove it to make the code
>> easier to read.
>>
On 28/06/2017 01:57, Alistair Francis wrote:
> There is no way nhandles can be zero in this section so that part of the
> if statement will always be false. Let's just remove it to make the code
> easier to read.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alistair Francis
> Acked-by: Edgar
On Tue, 06/27 16:57, Alistair Francis wrote:
> There is no way nhandles can be zero in this section so that part of the
> if statement will always be false. Let's just remove it to make the code
> easier to read.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alistair Francis
> Acked-by: Edgar
On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 8:57 PM, Alistair Francis
wrote:
> There is no way nhandles can be zero in this section so that part of the
> if statement will always be false. Let's just remove it to make the code
> easier to read.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alistair Francis