It's looking good, just one question remains.
On Thu, 2009-02-12 at 14:51 +0000, tim.je...@realtimeworlds.com wrote:
Index: Test/Mono.Unix/UnixSignalTest.cs
> ===================================================================
> --- Test/Mono.Unix/UnixSignalTest.cs (revision 123183)
> +++ Test/Mono.Unix/UnixSignalTest.cs (working copy)
> + [Test]
> + public void TestWaitAnyFailsWithMore64Signals()
> + {
> + UnixSignal s1 = new UnixSignal(Signum.SIGINT);
> + UnixSignal[] signals = new UnixSignal[65];
> + for (int i=0; i<65; ++i)
> + signals[i] = s1;
> +
> + Assert.That(UnixSignal.WaitAny(signals, new
> TimeSpan(0,0,1)), Is.EqualTo(-1));
> + }
Why should this be an error? The "no more than 64 UnixSignal instances"
is a restriction on the number of UnixSignal instances, not the number
we can block on...
> Index: signal.c
> ===================================================================
> --- signal.c (revision 123183)
> +++ signal.c (working copy)
> @@ -333,27 +370,32 @@
> int
> Mono_Unix_UnixSignal_WaitAny (void** _signals, int count, int timeout /*
> milliseconds */)
> {
> - fd_set read_fds;
> - int mr, r;
> - int max_fd = 0;
> + int r;
> + int currfd = 0;
> + struct pollfd fd_structs[NUM_SIGNALS];
>
> signal_info** signals = (signal_info**) _signals;
>
> - mr = pthread_mutex_lock (&signals_mutex);
> - if (mr != 0) {
> - errno = mr;
> + if (count > NUM_SIGNALS)
> return -1;
Again, I don't understand the need for this check.
Otherwise, this is looking good. Do you have an account to commit with,
or will I need to do it?
Thanks,
- Jon
_______________________________________________
Mono-devel-list mailing list
Mono-devel-list@lists.ximian.com
http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-devel-list
