Re: [PATCH/RFC] Re: recvmmsg() timeout behavior strangeness [RESEND]

["Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>]

On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 9:21 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
<acme@ghostprotocols.net> wrote:
> Em Tue, May 27, 2014 at 06:35:17PM +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) escreveu:
>> On 05/26/2014 11:17 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
>> > Can you try the attached patch on top of the first one?
>
>> Patches on patches is a way to make your testers work unnecessarily
>> harder. Also, it means that anyone else who was interested in this
>
> It was meant to highlight the changes with regard to the previous patch,
> i.e. to make things easier for reviewing.

(I don't think that works...)

>> thread likely got lost at this point, because they probably didn't
>> save the first patch. All of this to say: it makes life much easier
>> if you provide a complete new self-contained patch on each iteration.
>
> If you prefer it that way, find one attached, that I was about to send
> (but you can wait till I use your program to test it ;-) )
>
>> > It starts adding explicit parentheses on a ternary, as David requested,
>> > and then should return the remaining timeouts in cases like signals,
>> > etc.
>> >
>> > Please let me know if this is enough.
>>
>> Nope, it doesn't fix the problem. (I applied both patches against 3.15-rc7)
>
> What was the problem experienced?

The problem is that after EINTR, the timeout is not updated with the
remaining time until expiry. (This was true with just patch 1 applied,
and is also true with both patch 1 and patch 2 applied.)

Cheers,

Michael

-- 
Michael Kerrisk
Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/
Linux/UNIX System Programming Training: http://man7.org/training/