Proposed rearrangement of wl_event_loop_dispatch

[Bill Spitzak]

David Herrmann wrote:
> Hi Bill
> 
> On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 8:06 PM, Bill Spitzak <spitzak at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Any comments on this?
>>
> 
> It is much easier to comment on and follow patches if you include them
> inline. Also, where is the git headline? I recommend using
> git-format-patch and optionally git-send-email (even for RFC patches).

I did not actually commit this in git, as I was more like trying to ask 
a question. I think a real patch would involve renaming post_dispatch to 
something better describing how I am using it.

> Regarding your patch:
> Why do you continuously set "timeout" to 0 during the loop? It should
> be sufficient to set it one time only. Also, please add a newline
> after while() but before the loop-body.

Equivalent code that only sets it once, but I'm not thrilled with this 
because it duplicates the post_dispatch line:

         if (post_dispatch_check(loop) > 0) {
                 timeout = 0;
                 while (post_dispatch_check(loop) > 0);
         }

Here is the patch as an inline version:

diff --git a/src/event-loop.c b/src/event-loop.c
index a839daf..11da605 100644
--- a/src/event-loop.c
+++ b/src/event-loop.c
@@ -400,6 +400,8 @@ wl_event_loop_dispatch(struct wl_event_loop *loop, 
int timeout)

  	dispatch_idle_sources(loop);

+	while (post_dispatch_check(loop) > 0) timeout = 0;
+
  	count = epoll_wait(loop->epoll_fd, ep, ARRAY_LENGTH(ep), timeout);
  	if (count < 0)
  		return -1;
@@ -411,10 +413,6 @@ wl_event_loop_dispatch(struct wl_event_loop *loop, 
int timeout)
  	}

  	wl_event_loop_process_destroy_list(loop);
-
-	do {
-		n = post_dispatch_check(loop);
-	} while (n > 0);
  		
  	return 0;
  }