> On Nov 9, 2026, at 17:15, Etsuro Fujita <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi Chao,
>
> On Thu, Nov 5, 2026 at 2:59 PM Chao Li <[email protected]> wrote:
>> This is a follow-up to patch [1] that I recently reviewed. The header
>> comment of ExecAppendAsyncEventWait can be enhanced, but Etsuro-san
>> considered that a pure improvement, so he asked for a separate patch.
>
> Thanks for the patch! Here are my comments:
>
> * ExecAppendAsyncEventWait
> *
> * Wait or poll for file descriptor events and fire callbacks.
> + *
> + * If node->as_syncdone is true, wait until at least one event
> + * occurs; otherwise, poll without waiting so synchronous
> + * execution can proceed.
>
> I don't think this is 100% correct, because even when polling for
> events, we will do async execution if some were ready.
>
> BTW: I noticed we are clarifying this by this comment within that function:
>
> /*
> * If the timeout is -1, wait until at least one event occurs. If the
> * timeout is 0, poll for events, but do not wait at all.
> */
>
> This seems more accurate to me, so how about modifying the latter of
> the proposed comments using this, like the attached? This change
> makes the above comment redundant, so I removed it and instead added a
> brief comment.
>
> Best regards,
> Etsuro Fujita
> <v2-0001-Clarify-when-ExecAppendAsyncEventWait-waits-or-po.patch>
Hi Etsuro-san,
Thanks for reviewing and updating the patch. V2 is clearer, and it also
eliminates the redundant comment, which is good.
Best regards,
--
Chao Li (Evan)
HighGo Software Co., Ltd.
https://www.highgo.com/
