Junio C Hamano wrote:
>"Stephen R. van den Berg" <srb@xxxxxxx> writes:
>Sorry, but this does too many things in one patch.
Yes, I know, got carried away. Then again, the code has a lot of
overlapping places (spacewise); I kind of leapt from one place to the
next; you fix one thing, and then the next wart stares you in the face.
I'll see if I can split it up, if that suits you better.
> - Taking advantage of poll() getting interrupted by SIGCHLD, so that you
> do not have to do anything in the signal handler, is so obvious that I
> am actually ashamed of not having to think of it the last time we
> touched this code. Is there a poll() that does not return EINTR but
> just call the handler and restart after that as if nothing has
> happened, I have to wonder...
Only if the signal is set to SIG_IGN on all systems I worked with since
1987.
> - Conversion from silly fixed array to dynamic and configurable maximum
> would be a good idea, but that is independent from the above, isn't it?
It is, but the code is on the same lines (in large parts).
Separating it causes two things:
a. The patches to become dependent on each other in the timeline.
b. More (redundant) work, because some parts that need to be rewritten, get
deleted by the following patch(es).
> - I see you have a call to vsyslog, which is the first user of the
> function. How portable is it (the patch coming from you, I know
> Solaris would have it, and recent 4BSD also would, but what about the
> others)?
Cygwin has it, Solaris does, Linux does, MacOSX does.
AIX and HPUX don't, perhaps.
I'll see what I can do to avoid it, yet simplify the code.
--
Sincerely,
Stephen R. van den Berg.
Father's Day Special at the local clinic -- Vasectomy!
--
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
