minor fixes in event-loop.c

[Iskren Chernev]

The changes can be found in the last 4 commits in

git://iskren.info/wayland

repository, branch *mine*

Regads,
Iskren

2011/3/14 Kristian Høgsberg <hoegsberg at gmail.com>

> Great, that sounds like the right fix. Just update patches 1 and 4 to do
> that and put it all in a branch and I'll pull it from there.
>
> Kristian
>
> On Mar 13, 2011, at 4:26 PM, Iskren Chernev <iskren.chernev at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> According to the epoll(7) man page, closing a file descriptor removes it
> from all epoll sets as long as it hasn't been copied (and other copies are
> not closed):
>
> Q6  Will  closing  a  file  descriptor cause it to be removed from all
>     epoll sets automatically?
>
> A6  Yes, but . . . (explanation about copied fs via dup* etc)
>
> So maybe just closing the fds is the cleanest solution, given that only
> library code can manage them and won't copy them.
>
> Regards,
> Iskren
>
> On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 9:33 PM, Iskren Chernev <<iskren.chernev at gmail.com>
> iskren.chernev at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Reply-To-All :)
>>
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Iskren Chernev < <iskren.chernev at gmail.com>iskren.chernev at gmail.com
>> >
>> Date: 2011/3/13
>> Subject: Re: minor fixes in event-loop.c
>> To: Kristian Høgsberg < <krh at bitplanet.net>krh at bitplanet.net>
>>
>>
>> I fixed the "close fd" ones, but its not perfect:
>> -- in what order should we do the epoll_ctl, close and free?
>> -- what should we do if epoll_ctl is first and fails, or if close is first
>> and fails (call the next one or return)?
>> -- should we free if epoll_ctl of close fail?
>> -- should we loop on close while it returns EINTR - the man page doesn't
>> say weather SA_RESTART works for close.
>>
>> I think that close is unlikely to fail, because it is a special system fd.
>> I'm not sure how often does epoll_ctl fail and what can be done about it --
>> there is no error returned from epoll_ctl that we might get unless there is
>> something very wrong.
>>
>> It should be good enough for now :)
>>
>> Regards,
>> Iskren
>>
>> PS.: I'll make a github account in the near future. So should I also send
>> the patches with send-mail or only somehow send links to the revision in
>> github?
>>
>> 2011/3/13 Kristian Høgsberg < <krh at bitplanet.net>krh at bitplanet.net>
>>
>>> On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Iskren Chernev
>>> < <iskren.chernev at gmail.com>iskren.chernev at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > Some patches for event-loop.c -- the signal & timer fds were never
>>> closed.
>>> > In the future do you prefer patches standalone or archived?
>>>
>>> Looks like more good patches.  Patches 1 and 4 close the fd before
>>> passing it to epoll_ctl(), and I don't think that's how it's supposed
>>> to work.  It may or may not work depending on the implementation and
>>> the man page doesn't state one way or the other.  However, the obvious
>>> safe approach is to just call epoll_ctl() before closing the fd.
>>>
>>> I prefer patches sent by git send-email, since they're easy to review
>>> and discuss on the list, but for more than a couple of patches I also
>>> would like a branch somewhere (github, gitorious etc) that I can just
>>> pull if it all looks ok.
>>>
>>> Kristian
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/wayland-devel/attachments/20110314/ea1dff0b/attachment-0001.htm>