Author neologix
Recipients georg.brandl, gvanrossum, neologix, pitrou, python-dev, serhiy.storchaka, vstinner
Date 2014-01-25.22:11:54
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <CAH_1eM1qBDu_rX8kbjq1pL+Sa+k5PHpefSKTDo4fXp2HB=91mQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-reply-to <CAMpsgwbTnRQx_68fBwQN=M8hx_XEqbDic9zsUhYV-VV7wi6aGQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content
> > Once again, what's wrong with your initial approach of ceiling the
timeout?
>
> It looks like changing the rounding method doesn't solve anything.
> selector.select(timeout) may still take less than timeout, so it
> doesn't give any guarantee.

But what problem does it cause if, once in a while, the call takes less
than the passed timeout?
If that's the case, you'll simply perform another loop, an wake up 1ms
later, that's all.

There's a lot of call written this way, and this has never been a problem:
so far, you still didn't give an example of problematic behavior.
History
Date User Action Args
2014-01-25 22:11:54neologixsetrecipients: + neologix, gvanrossum, georg.brandl, pitrou, vstinner, python-dev, serhiy.storchaka
2014-01-25 22:11:54neologixlinkissue20311 messages
2014-01-25 22:11:54neologixcreate