From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Sixt Subject: Re: [msysGit] [PATCH/RFC 09/11] daemon: use run-command api for async serving Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 20:12:08 +0100 Message-ID: <200912022012.08905.j6t@kdbg.org> References: <1259196260-3064-1-git-send-email-kusmabite@gmail.com> <200911272159.38757.j6t@kdbg.org> <40aa078e0912020745o4b72342fm722a944621cfda5@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: msysgit@googlegroups.com, git@vger.kernel.org, dotzenlabs@gmail.com To: kusmabite@gmail.com X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Dec 02 20:12:38 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1NFucr-0004bj-Tg for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 20:12:34 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755468AbZLBTMW (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Dec 2009 14:12:22 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755436AbZLBTMW (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Dec 2009 14:12:22 -0500 Received: from bsmtp1.bon.at ([213.33.87.15]:21437 "EHLO bsmtp.bon.at" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754830AbZLBTMV (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Dec 2009 14:12:21 -0500 Received: from dx.sixt.local (unknown [93.83.142.38]) by bsmtp.bon.at (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94AE0CDF8D; Wed, 2 Dec 2009 20:12:25 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dx.sixt.local (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0070A19F60D; Wed, 2 Dec 2009 20:12:08 +0100 (CET) User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10 In-Reply-To: <40aa078e0912020745o4b72342fm722a944621cfda5@mail.gmail.com> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Mittwoch, 2. Dezember 2009, Erik Faye-Lund wrote: > On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 9:59 PM, Johannes Sixt wrote: > > Would it make sense to > > have a function finish_async_nowait() instead of is_async_alive() that > > (1) stresses the start/finish symmetry and (2) can return more than just > > Boolean? >... > > I'm not entirely sure how to make the interface, though. Any good > suggestions? I suggest to model finish_async_nowait() after waitpid() so that while ((pid = waitpid(-1, &status, WNOHANG)) > 0) ... becomes while ((pid = finish_async_nowait(&some_async, &status)) > 0) ... but where the resulting status is already "decoded", i.e. zero is success and non-zero is failure (including death through signal); WIFEXITED and WEXITSTATUS should not be applicable to status anymore. -- Hannes