On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 05:43:37PM +0100, Marc Lehmann schm...@schmorp.de
wrote:
[Please take this off-list - we can post a result of any discussions later
here, but this is not a professional medicine list.]
Well, that was quick - in his first private mail Gabriel admitted that he
just wanted
Marc,
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 02:47:26PM +0100, Marc Lehmann wrote:
in his first private mail Gabriel admitted that he just wanted to troll, and
has no feelings of remorse for it.
For the sake of completeness, you might also have mentioned the very last
sentence of the last private email I
Marc,
I really wonder now whether you are the same Konstantin Osipov who
wrote
all these mails that you claim you didn't write. Claiming you merely
pointed out a discrepancy borders on schizophrenia - you clearly
wrote
multiple mails with lots of content, didn't you?
You are a very
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 08:56:38AM +, Gabriel Kerneis
kern...@pps.jussieu.fr wrote:
all these mails that you claim you didn't write. Claiming you merely
pointed out a discrepancy borders on schizophrenia - you clearly
wrote
multiple mails with lots of content, didn't you?
You are a
Marc,
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 03:37:06PM +0100, Marc Lehmann wrote:
all these mails that you claim you didn't write. Claiming you merely
pointed out a discrepancy borders on schizophrenia - you clearly wrote
multiple mails with lots of content, didn't you?
One thing […] I certainly
[Please take this off-list - we can post a result of any discussions later
here, but this is not a professional medicine list.]
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 04:45:40PM +0100, Gabriel Kerneis
kern...@pps.jussieu.fr wrote:
You are definitely making stuff out of the blue in that case, because the
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 10:33:54PM +0400, Konstantin Osipov
kostja.osi...@gmail.com wrote:
Marc, I'm sorry, but I find this your last e-mail rather
beside the point.
I was implyeplying to your arguments. If you didn't want that, why write
your mail in the first place? This list is not an empty
* Marc Lehmann schm...@schmorp.de [13/01/24 11:18]:
In my view, it's important to make sure the callback is always,
otherwise it's hard to reliably manage resources associated
with eio function arguments.
I am not sure I can follow. I certainly never felt it as very hard to
manage
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 02:37:27PM +0400, Konstantin Osipov wrote:
ssize_t
coeio_custom(ssize_t (*func)(va_list ap), ev_tstamp timeout, ...)
{
struct coeio_task task;
task.fiber = fiber;
task.func = func;
task.result = -1;
va_start(task.ap, timeout);
* Jonathan Neuschäfer j.neuschae...@gmx.net [13/01/24 22:00]:
ssize_t
coeio_custom(ssize_t (*func)(va_list ap), ev_tstamp timeout, ...)
{
struct coeio_task task;
task.fiber = fiber;
task.func = func;
task.result = -1;
va_start(task.ap,
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 06:22:24PM +0400, Konstantin Osipov
kostja.osi...@gmail.com wrote:
libeio manual says that:
Thanks, this is another doc bug.
In my view, it's important to make sure the callback is always,
otherwise it's hard to reliably manage resources associated
with eio function
11 matches
Mail list logo
