"Randall S. Becker" <rsbecker@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> In any case, no matter what POSIX says, if clearing .revents before > calling >> poll() helps on platforms in the real world, the patch is worth taking as > a fix, I >> would think. > > That's what my intent was - my explanations are suffering from a little > work-induced sleep deprivation. Would you like this as a formal patch? That depends ;-) At this late in the cycle, I do not see much urgency for this patch to be in the upcoming release (after all, this code survived real world for quite a long time, so it's only minority platforms like NonStop that haven't seen serious porting effort until recently that would see improvement---and they have survived without reliably working daemon for so long that they can wait for one more release). Now, the knowledge that we will have long enough time before the final version of the formal patch becomes necessary makes me wonder what the best use of that time to polish the patch would be. Ideally we'd like to see "this definitely fixed (or 'worked around') such and such breakages on platform X, Y and Z" instead of my "Well, we could read POSIX that way, so there may be some platforms that would require applications to do this, and an extra assignment here would certainly not hurt", which was the hand-waving I just did. I dunno.
