On 22.09.15 08:23, Jacob Keller wrote: > On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 9:55 PM, Torsten Bögershausen <tboegi@xxxxxx> wrote: >> But in any case I suggest to xread() as it is, and not to change the >> functionality >> behind the back of the users. >> >> > > I don't think this patch actually changes behavior as it stands now. I > think Junio's suggestion does. Personally, I'd prefer some sort of > warning when you use xread and get EAGAIN or EWOULDBLOCK. I'd rather > see it somehow warn so that we can find the bug (since we really > really shouldn't be calling xread with a blocking socket, especially > if we have xread_noblock or similar as in this series. > > Not sure if we really want to handle that, but I know we don't want to > change external behavior of xread... I think that polling is better > than the current "spinning" behavior. > > Regards, > Jake Oh sorry for my comment, I mis-read the whole thing completely. And yes, a warning would be better than a poll() -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html