On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 10:56:33 +0200 David Marchand <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 1:28 AM Stephen Hemminger > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > The existing definition of rte_epoll_wait retries if interrupted > > by a signal. This behavior makes it hard to use rte_epoll_wait > > for applications that want to use signals do do things like > > exit polling loop and shutdown. > > > > Since changing existing semantic might break applications, add > > a new rte_epoll_wait_interruptible() function that does the > > same thing as rte_epoll_wait but will return -1 and errno of EINTR > > if it receives a signal. > > > > Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger <[email protected]> > > Reviewed-by: Harman Kalra <[email protected]> > > You will certainly argue that the existing function had no unit test > but we want to fix this at some point. > Can a unit test be added? The whole interrupt system really has no test, if it did then epoll would be part of that.
