Looking at event.c:event_process_active(), it looks like higher priority
events can starve low priority ones if high priority events are
generated during the event callback. Is that by design or a bug?
--
Ka-Hing Cheung <[EMAIL PROTEC
On Tue, 2006-06-13 at 17:03 -0700, Niels Provos wrote:
> On 6/13/06, Ka-Hing Cheung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > generated during the event callback. Is that by design or a bug?
>
> That's by design.
What is the rationale behind this? I have some higher priority t
On Mon, 2009-04-06 at 11:17 -0700, Nick Mathewson wrote:
> If you want to try 0-copy stuff with bufferevents, you'll need to wait
> for Libevent 2.0. Libevent 1.4 doesn't really support that so well.
Is there some kind of rough schedule on when libevent 2.0 may come out?
-khc
_
In buffer.c:28 an include "event-config.h" is wrapped by HAVE_CONFIG_H,
but on line 85 there's a bare include "event-config.h". Should the 2nd
include and the HAVE_CONFIG_H check removed?
-khc
___
Libevent-users mailing list
Libevent-users@monkey.org
h
Attached is a patch that makes event_base_loop() return 2 if it returns
because of a prior call to event_base_loopexit() or
event_base_loopbreak(). This is useful when the caller calls
event_base_loop(base, EVLOOP_ONCE) repeatedly (to do stuff in between
events) and need to know if it should exit.
On Wed, 2009-08-12 at 02:50 -0700, q6Yr7e0o nIJDVMjC wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> one general question, why do you use #defines instead of enums?
Because the constants right above are also #defines, so I just follow
the existing practice.
-khc
___
Libevent-us
On Tue, 2009-08-11 at 16:25 -0700, Ka-Hing Cheung wrote:
> Attached is a patch that makes event_base_loop() return 2 if it returns
> because of a prior call to event_base_loopexit() or
> event_base_loopbreak(). This is useful when the caller calls
> event_base_loop(base, EVLOOP_ONCE
On Thu, 2009-08-13 at 09:16 -0700, Nick Mathewson wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 11:42:47AM -0700, Ka-Hing Cheung wrote:
> [...]
> > I do realize that this breaks existing assumptions about return values.
> > What if instead of using a different return value, we do
On Sun, 2009-08-16 at 10:39 -0700, Nick Mathewson wrote:
> > but I am willing to submit another patch (the one with
> > accessor to base->event_gotterm/event_break) if you think that's the
> > better way to do it.
>
> Probably.
Sorry for taking so long. Attached is the promised patch which adds
a
