Author gvanrossum
Recipients Alexey.Poryadin, gvanrossum, neologix, vstinner, yselivanov
Date 2014-12-08.16:35:44
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <CAP7+vJK83XwaH94qfQ+43M898O1WaMtWAbCbZXBiqTEACnuVTQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-reply-to <1418054496.82.0.376962240787.issue23009@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
Content
Please add a comment explaining the complaint from epoll.poll() we're
trying to avoid here.

I presume Tulip never gets into this state because of the self-pipe.

On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 8:01 AM, STINNER Victor <report@bugs.python.org>
wrote:

>
> STINNER Victor added the comment:
>
> It's a little bit surprising to call epoll_wait() without any FD
> subscribed, but select([], [], [], delay) is a known way to sleep 'delay'
> seconds, so why not using epoll in a similar way? :-)
>
> epoll_02.patch looks good to me. Can you please also apply the patch to
> the Tulip project?
>
> (By the way, test_selectors.py to Tulip is completly different, we may
> just reuse the file from CPython and drop the code from Tulip.)
>
> ----------
>
> _______________________________________
> Python tracker <report@bugs.python.org>
> <http://bugs.python.org/issue23009>
> _______________________________________
>
History
Date User Action Args
2014-12-08 16:35:44gvanrossumsetrecipients: + gvanrossum, vstinner, neologix, yselivanov, Alexey.Poryadin
2014-12-08 16:35:44gvanrossumlinkissue23009 messages
2014-12-08 16:35:44gvanrossumcreate