On Sunday 23 January 2011 21:55, Peter Korsgaard wrote: > >>>>> "Denys" == Denys Vlasenko <vda.li...@googlemail.com> writes: > > Hi, > > Rich> Is there a reason you're not considering the alarm approach? > Rich> alarm+drain will not hang at all if the buffer drains immediately. > Rich> sleep+flush or usleep+flush will *always* sleep at least some > Rich> interval, which is annoying to the user. > >> > >> Indeed. It seems vastly superior, and only slightly more complicated. > > Denys> What happened to "we are busybox, we like simple solutions"? > Denys> Rob periodically grills me that I am making it too complicated... > > I agree that we shouldn't make stuff too complicated - E.G. lets not add > config options to make the user choose if he wants tcdrain or the amount > of time to sleep before tcflush, but E.G. my 4-line alarm() + tcdrain > patch doesn't add much complexity (and it's all local), and it solves a > real world issue.
It also breaks -t SEC option. -- vda _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list busybox@busybox.net http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
