RE: [Proposed Fix] daemon.c: not initializing revents

["Randall S. Becker" <rsbecker@nexbridge.com>]

On February 11, 2019 21:59, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> "Randall S. Becker" <rsbecker@nexbridge.com> writes:
> 
> >> In any case, no matter what POSIX says, if clearing .revents before
> > calling
> >> poll() helps on platforms in the real world, the patch is worth
> >> taking as
> > a fix, I
> >> would think.
> >
> > That's what my intent was - my explanations are suffering from a
> > little work-induced sleep deprivation. Would you like this as a formal
> patch?
> 
> That depends ;-)
> 
> At this late in the cycle, I do not see much urgency for this patch to be
in the
> upcoming release (after all, this code survived real world for quite a
long
> time, so it's only minority platforms like NonStop that haven't seen
serious
> porting effort until recently that would see improvement---and they have
> survived without reliably working daemon for so long that they can wait
for
> one more release).
> 
> Now, the knowledge that we will have long enough time before the final
> version of the formal patch becomes necessary makes me wonder what the
> best use of that time to polish the patch would be.  Ideally we'd like to
see
> "this definitely fixed (or 'worked around') such and such breakages on
> platform X, Y and Z" instead of my "Well, we could read POSIX that way, so
> there may be some platforms that would require applications to do this,
and
> an extra assignment here would certainly not hurt", which was the hand-
> waving I just did.
> 
> I dunno.

I hear that. I'd rather (not) be working on debugging breakages from other
authors that impact my platform. Honestly, I'd rather work at my $DAYJOB,
although, some days...

Since this topic isn't a breakage per-se (no tests seem to be impacted on
way or another), I agree that this can wait and get through the normal cycle
of events at some point in the future. Now, if I could only get some help on
t5562 ;) that would be time well spent for rc0.

Cheers,
Randall