Re: [PATCH] compat: Add another rudimentary poll() emulation
- From
- Marko Kreen <markokr@gmail.com>
- Date
- May 27, 2010, 13:58 UTC
- Message-ID
- <AANLkTiko_Azw-cXNFe11oXkijvtER2I9qiRE_gVFouht@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <AANLkTik2UAA51BZWIKadAcIg8t2xg1u980Gq_IOSyz6o@mail.gmail.com>
On 5/27/10, Erik Faye-Lund <kusmabite@googlemail.com> wrote:
Show 41 quoted lines
> On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 3:29 PM, Marko Kreen <markokr@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 5/27/10, Erik Faye-Lund <kusmabite@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >> On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 1:00 PM, Erik Faye-Lund
> >> <kusmabite@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >> > On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 12:10 PM, Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> Implement the subset of poll() semantics needed by git in terms of
> >> >> select(), for use by the Interix port. Inspired by commit 6ed807f
> >> >> (Windows: A rudimentary poll() emulation, 2007-12-01).
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > A possible problem with this approach is that the maximum number of
> >> > file descriptors poll can handle limited by RLIMIT_NOFILE, whereas the
> >> > maximum number of file descriptors select can handle is limited by
> >> > FD_SETSIZE.
> >> >
> >> > I don't think this is a big problem in reality, though - both values
> >> > seem to be pretty high in most implementations. And IIRC git-daemon is
> >> > the only one who needs more than 2, and it doesn't even check
> >> > RLIMIT_NOFILE.
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> To be clear: I think this strategy is the best option (at least for
> >> non-Windows, where select() might be our only option).
> >>
> >> But perhaps you should include a check along the lines of this:
> >>
> >> if (nfds > FD_SETSIZE)
> >> return errno = EINVAL, error("poll: nfds must be below %d", FD_SETSIZE);
> >>
> >> Just so we can know when the code fails :)
> >
> > Well, per your own FD_SET example, the FD_SETSIZE on windows
> > means different thing than FD_SETSIZE on old-style bitmap-based
> > select() implementation.
> >
> > On Unix, it's max fd number + 1, on windows it's max count.
> >
>
>
> Are you sure this applies for all Unix, not just some given Unix-y system?Not sure. Just pointing out that the above check is not universal enough.
-- marko