This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub ,
and is currently read-only.
For more information,
see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.
| Author | christian.heimes |
|---|---|
| Recipients | christian.heimes, therve |
| Date | 2007年12月19日.10:50:49 |
| SpamBayes Score | 0.0032293012 |
| Marked as misclassified | No |
| Message-id | <1198061449.48.0.88362713326.issue1657@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content | |
|---|---|
> For this patch, I don't see the benefit of putting it in the select > module, instead of a separate module. Is there a specific reason? There is at least one, but probably several other modules named "epoll" or "_epoll" in the wild. These modules implement an epoll interface with Pyrex, ctypes or C. All of them have a slightly different API. I don't want to break 3rd party software. The select module already contains an interface to select and poll. IMO it's the best place. > Looking at the code, I don't have many remarks. pyepoll_new may leak > if epoll_create fails. I think that allowing threading around > epoll_ctl is useless, but I may be wrong. Thanks, I've fixed the problem in pyepoll_new. The Linux kernel protects every call to epoll_ctl with a mutex. It *could* block and therefor I'm allowing threads around the epoll_ctl() call. |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2007年12月19日 10:50:49 | christian.heimes | set | spambayes_score: 0.0032293 -> 0.0032293012 recipients: + christian.heimes, therve |
| 2007年12月19日 10:50:49 | christian.heimes | set | spambayes_score: 0.0032293 -> 0.0032293 messageid: <1198061449.48.0.88362713326.issue1657@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2007年12月19日 10:50:49 | christian.heimes | link | issue1657 messages |
| 2007年12月19日 10:50:49 | christian.heimes | create | |