On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 1:57 PM, Cedric BAIL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 4:45 PM, The Rasterman Carsten Haitzler
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 13:15:13 -0300 "Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> babbled:
> > > For simplicity, I would just process one message per callback from
> > > ecore_fd_main... but we can also use a poll/select inside this
> > > function and do what you want, without the need to fcntl to
> > > NONBLOCKING.
> >
> > just read a buffer of messages - if we don't get a complete message,
> store the
> > partial one and keep it until the next call to process events then
> complete the
> > message fetch.
>
> Ok. Here is an updated patch. The fd is still nonblocking and on
> partial read, it should be able to just restart cleany at a later
> time. You will now pass a function pointer so that you can call
> whatever kind of code you want (I doubt we really need something else
> than evas_object_event_callback). I also make it optional. Some more
> comments ?
configure: s/build_async/build_async_events/g; make it default on (use
"auto" to check for pthread, "yes" would fail without pthread and "no"
is... well no).
+static pthread_mutex_t _mutex;
i think it's safer to just initialize the mutex here using (and remove
the destroy call):
static pthread_mutex_t _mutex = PTHREAD_MUTEX_INITIALIZER;
evas_async_events_process(void):
+ if (_fd_read != -1)
+ do
reverse this logic: if (_d_read == -1) return 0;
this will avoid the unnecessary nesting and would remove the bug that
it have today: "check" might be uninitialized in this function.
Actually write the whole function like (more beautiful imho):
if (_fd_read == -1)
return -1;
count = 0;
while ((check = read(_fd_read, ((char *)¤t) + size,
sizeof(current) - size)) > 0)
{
size += check;
if (size < sizeof(current))
continue;
if (current.func)
current.func(current.target, current.type, current.event_info);
size = 0;
count++;
}
if (check < 0) {
...;
_fd_read = -1;
}
return count;
For evas_async_events_put, also reverse the logic, I'd write:
if (!func) return 0;
if (_fd_write == -1) return 0;
...
pthread_mutex_lock(&_mutex);
do { ... } while ( ... )
pthread_mutex_unlock(&_mutex);
this would not do unneeded locks and avoid nested code.
Also, note that the function return "Evas_Bool" but in the version
without BUILD_ASYNC_EVENTS you return -1.
Aside these minor, mostly cosmetic, things, it's ready for inclusion :-)
--
Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri
http://profusion.mobi
Embedded Systems
--------------------------------------
MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Skype: gsbarbieri
Mobile: +55 (81) 9927 0010
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by the 2008 JavaOne(SM) Conference
Don't miss this year's exciting event. There's still time to save $100.
Use priority code J8TL2D2.
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;198757673;13503038;p?http://java.sun.com/javaone
_______________________________________________
enlightenment-devel mailing list
enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
