On Wed, 2013-02-13 at 08:46 +0100, Richard Braun wrote: > On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 07:24:46AM +0100, Svante Signell wrote: > > > We warned you several times about making your changes as little > > > intrusive as possible for easier review. Since you seem to be unable to > > > understand what that implies, it's only natural Samuel no longer wastes > > > time on this and simply replies "to long to go through it". > > > > I am able to understand, no problem. And I know that a patch this large > > can be difficult to review. Problem is that he did not give any hints on > > _how_ to make the rewrite. If introducing the SELECT_ERROR had been > > discussed (or allowed to introduce) my solution would have been > > different too. But I would still use the helper functions to improve > > readability (and maintainability). > > Of course. That's our job to give you ideas.
There were none... > About how to make the rewrite, well first we told you not to. Yes I know, but I did it anyway. > Look at > the branch Samuel just created [1], it's not a rewrite, there only are a > few changes, quite simple to understand. I've read it now, and the solution is quite elegant :) With your implementation of timeouts in the server POSIX compliance will be much better from now on, especially for poll(). I think there are still some corner cases left (need to check out the whole patched hurdselect.c and run some test code to find out). But doing that one needs to upgrade Hurd too to include your changes, right? Svante
