On Fri, 13.09.13 08:38, cee1 (fykc...@gmail.com) wrote:
> 2013/9/12 Lennart Poettering :
> > On Thu, 12.09.13 09:43, cee1 (fykc...@gmail.com) wrote:
> >
> >> What about the following patch? It simply do read/write again if poll
> >> returns, and let read/write report error if something is wrong.
>
2013/9/12 Lennart Poettering :
> On Thu, 12.09.13 09:43, cee1 (fykc...@gmail.com) wrote:
>
>> What about the following patch? It simply do read/write again if poll
>> returns, and let read/write report error if something is wrong.
>
> I guess that patch makes sense, but could you change it to not j
On Thu, 12.09.13 09:43, cee1 (fykc...@gmail.com) wrote:
> What about the following patch? It simply do read/write again if poll
> returns, and let read/write report error if something is wrong.
I guess that patch makes sense, but could you change it to not just
comment but delete the old lines? A
2013/9/11 Lennart Poettering :
>> loop_read/loop_write:
>> http://cgit.freedesktop.org/systemd/systemd/tree/src/shared/util.c#n2179
>>
>> In a scenario of pipes, loop_read on read side, if the write side is
>> closed, loop_read will return 0 if do_poll is false(let's assume no
>> data available to
On Wed, 11.09.13 21:50, cee1 (fykc...@gmail.com) wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> loop_read/loop_write:
> http://cgit.freedesktop.org/systemd/systemd/tree/src/shared/util.c#n2179
>
> In a scenario of pipes, loop_read on read side, if the write side is
> closed, loop_read will return 0 if do_poll is false(le
