minor fixes in event-loop.c

[Kristian Høgsberg]

2011/3/14 Iskren Chernev <iskren.chernev at gmail.com>:
> The changes can be found in the last 4 commits in
> git://iskren.info/wayland
>
> repository, branch mine

Thanks, merged.
Kristian

> 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>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Reply-To-All :)
>>>
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: Iskren Chernev <iskren.chernev at gmail.com>
>>> Date: 2011/3/13
>>> Subject: Re: minor fixes in event-loop.c
>>> To: Kristian Høgsberg <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>
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Iskren Chernev
>>>> <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
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>