On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 3:52 PM, Alexandre Julliard <julli...@winehq.org> wrote: > Mike Kaplinskiy <mike.kaplins...@gmail.com> writes: > >> Hope this makes the rationale a bit clearer. Although admittedly the >> patch does allow for some busy waiting since >> if (mask & FD_READ || async_waiting( sock->read_q )) ev |= POLLIN | POLLPRI; >> should be more like >> if ( (mask & FD_READ && !async_busy( sock->read_q )) || >> async_waiting( sock->read_q )) ev |= POLLIN | POLLPRI; >> which probably should've went into #3. >> >> Should I merge 2&3 and resend? > > I think there's more to it than merging them. If you have to ignore > events you are doing something wrong, because you shouldn't get the > events in the first place. >
Well we wouldn't be ignoring them, just not using them for FD_READ/FD_WRITE. We need POLLIN/POLLOUT when we have pending asyncs, but we shouldn't set FD_READ/FD_WRITE every time we get a POLLIN/POLLOUT since these events were needed by the overlapped operations. Mike.
