Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] [PATCH libubox/uloop] Remove signal handle after uloop_run()

2013-10-21 Thread Felix Fietkau
On 2013-10-21 7:21 PM, Kristian Evensen wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 5:31 PM, Felix Fietkau wrote: >> bool is a more appropriate type here than uint8_t > > Thanks for letting me know. > >> I think you need to use a different approach. What you're doing here >> breaks recursive uloop

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] [PATCH libubox/uloop] Remove signal handle after uloop_run()

2013-10-21 Thread Kristian Evensen
Hi, On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 5:31 PM, Felix Fietkau wrote: > bool is a more appropriate type here than uint8_t Thanks for letting me know. > I think you need to use a different approach. What you're doing here > breaks recursive uloop_run calls, which are used in a few places. > You need to chan

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] [PATCH libubox/uloop] Remove signal handle after uloop_run()

2013-10-21 Thread Felix Fietkau
On 2013-10-21 4:43 PM, Kristian Evensen wrote: > From: Kristian Evensen > > uloop_run calls uloop_setup_signals() to set up signal handling before the > while > loop, but does not remove the signal handling after the loop has ended. This > can > cause problems for for example applications using

[OpenWrt-Devel] [PATCH libubox/uloop] Remove signal handle after uloop_run()

2013-10-21 Thread Kristian Evensen
From: Kristian Evensen uloop_run calls uloop_setup_signals() to set up signal handling before the while loop, but does not remove the signal handling after the loop has ended. This can cause problems for for example applications using the ubus file descriptor in their own event loops, and perhaps