On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 8:56 PM, Marc Lehmann schm...@schmorp.de wrote:
in loop_fork() you call
Hm, right.
Can you try the CVS version of libev? That one doesn't rely on this check
anymore, and will probably just work (the test in the signal handler relied
on int being atomic and was
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 1:24 PM, Marc Lehmann schm...@schmorp.de wrote:
Hmm, it's been a long time - what exactly is the behaviour I am supposed to
see from the program without the sleep, and what behaviour do you get?
Here's the program with sleep removed (no further changes necessary),
just
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 10:32 PM, Denis Bilenko denis.bile...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 9:13 PM, Marc Lehmann schm...@schmorp.de wrote:
The SIGCHLD is received, of course, but then libev fails to notify the
child watcher in a timely manner. Instead, it delays the notification
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 12:15:57PM +0400, Denis Bilenko
denis.bile...@gmail.com wrote:
There's another issue, in which libev does lose the signal forever. To
reproduce it, remove sleep(1) from the latest test program.
Hmm, it's been a long time - what exactly is the behaviour I am supposed
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12:39:24AM +0400, Denis Bilenko
denis.bile...@gmail.com wrote:
- not use the event loop in the main process; use waitpid()
- fail on first iteration
You can see it here: https://gist.github.com/gists/2838734
The SIGCHLD is received, of course, but then libev
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 9:13 PM, Marc Lehmann schm...@schmorp.de wrote:
The SIGCHLD is received, of course, but then libev fails to notify the
child watcher in a timely manner. Instead, it delays the notification
by 60 seconds (MAX_BLOCKTIME).
I'll have a look, however, from looking
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 1:29 AM, Marc Lehmann schm...@schmorp.de wrote:
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 10:57:31PM +0400, Denis Bilenko
denis.bile...@gmail.com wrote:
No, it's not that. Attached is the program that checks the error codes
and also waits for a child using child watcher. Still fails.
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 02:55:52PM +0400, Denis Bilenko
denis.bile...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, it seems that waitpid() somehow masks or avoids the bug. If I
apply this small patch to your program it fails - why?
The test program still forks with an existing loop, and when I run it
after the patch
Hi,
I have a weird test case (attached) where SIGCHLD is not being
received by libev. I don't quite understand if it's a
1) bug in how I use libev
2) bug in libev itself
3) bug in the OS
The work around I found that makes this test pass is to patch libev to
start a timer (active only when there
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 04:31:05PM +0400, Denis Bilenko
denis.bile...@gmail.com wrote:
I have a weird test case (attached) where SIGCHLD is not being
received by libev. I don't quite understand if it's a
Well, thanks for a simple-to-try test program :)
1) bug in how I use libev
This one -
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 05:29:20PM +0200, Gabriel Kerneis
kern...@pps.jussieu.fr wrote:
I do not understand what you mean here, probably because I never tried to mix
fork, pthreads and epoll in a single program. Could you please provide some
Oh, it's quite independent of each other, too, i.e.
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 7:12 PM, Marc Lehmann schm...@schmorp.de wrote:
This one - your test program forks after initialising the default loop,
without calling ev_default_fork.
OK, I've fixed the test program to do that and also fixed a fd leak.
It takes a bit longer to fail now, but it still
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 09:57:30PM +0400, Denis Bilenko
denis.bile...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 7:12 PM, Marc Lehmann schm...@schmorp.de wrote:
This one - your test program forks after initialising the default loop,
without calling ev_default_fork.
OK, I've fixed the test
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 10:08 PM, Marc Lehmann schm...@schmorp.de wrote:
You also don't call waitpid on your children - can you add error checking
to all functions you call, to make sure you really do wait for your
children (especially check fork returns)? Most likely you run out of
process
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 10:57:31PM +0400, Denis Bilenko
denis.bile...@gmail.com wrote:
No, it's not that. Attached is the program that checks the error codes
and also waits for a child using child watcher. Still fails.
Now you changed your program considerably, and I am too lazy/sleepy to
15 matches
Mail list logo
