On February 11, 2019 21:59, Junio C Hamano wrote: > "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. I hear that. I'd rather (not) be working on debugging breakages from other authors that impact my platform. Honestly, I'd rather work at my $DAYJOB, although, some days... Since this topic isn't a breakage per-se (no tests seem to be impacted on way or another), I agree that this can wait and get through the normal cycle of events at some point in the future. Now, if I could only get some help on t5562 ;) that would be time well spent for rc0. Cheers, Randall
