Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-developers-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-developers/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-developers-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 10:43:10 -0400
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: 1.3.13?
Message-ID: <20020830144310.GC1218@redhat.com>
Reply-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
References: <20020804195150 DOT GA3381 AT redhat DOT com> <110679106062 DOT 20020805171034 AT logos-m DOT ru> <20020830032032 DOT GA29946 AT redhat DOT com> <22157359901 DOT 20020830101736 AT logos-m DOT ru>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <22157359901.20020830101736@logos-m.ru>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23.1i

On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 10:17:36AM +0400, egor duda wrote:
>Hi!
>
>Friday, 30 August, 2002 Christopher Faylor cgf AT redhat DOT com wrote:
>
>CF> On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 05:10:34PM +0400, egor duda wrote:
>>>Sunday, 04 August, 2002 Christopher Faylor cgf AT redhat DOT com wrote:
>>>CF> I'd like to release 1.3.13.  The outstanding issues that I am aware of
>>>CF> are Conrad's UNIX domain socket patch and Thomas's pthread patches.
>>>
>>>CF> Is there anything else?
>>>
>>>Current tty code has a bug when canonical mode is turned off, vmin==0
>>> and vtime > 0. The patch seems obvious -- just remove the code
>>>that specially sets waiting time to infinite if vmin==0. I'm just
>>>wondering what made me write this lines of code, and until i fully
>>>understand the reason (it might be simple brain overheating, after all
>>>:), i'm somewhat reluctant to make this change.
>
>CF> Did you ever convince yourself that this was a reasonable fix, Egor?
>CF> The vmin and vtime stuff has always made my head hurt so I can't offer
>CF> much help, I'm afraid.
>
>I vaguely remember some sort of discussion about possibility of
>removing fhandler::ready_for_read() in _read() call before calling
>actual fhandler::read() if the latter is interruptible. Do i
>understand things right? Calling ready_for_read() shouldn't be
>necessary in such cases, will increase performance a bit and greatly
>simplify the logic dealing with vmin and vtime. Was there any plans to
>add 'virtual read_is_interruptible()' call to fhandler?

No.  There are no such plans.  The current scheme should be adequate.

cgf