From owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Oct 13 16:17:28 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A1A416A4B3
	for <freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org>; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 16:17:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from blake.polstra.com (dsl081-189-066.sea1.dsl.speakeasy.net
	[64.81.189.66])	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B291E43F85
	for <freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org>; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 16:17:27 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from jdp@polstra.com)
Received: from strings.polstra.com (dsl081-189-067.sea1.dsl.speakeasy.net
	[64.81.189.67])
	by blake.polstra.com (8.12.9p2/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h9DNHJOH030733;
	Mon, 13 Oct 2003 16:17:19 -0700 (PDT)	(envelope-from jdp@polstra.com)
Message-ID: <XFMail.20031013161719.jdp@polstra.com>
X-Mailer: XFMail 1.5.4 on FreeBSD
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20031013194716.GP533@funkthat.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 16:17:19 -0700 (PDT)
From: John Polstra <jdp@polstra.com>
To: John-Mark Gurney <gurney_j@efn.org>
X-Bogosity: No, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.499992, version=0.14.5
cc: boris@cs.tu-berlin.de
cc: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: kern/45291: kevent(2) ignores timeout if nevents == 0
X-BeenThere: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bug reports <freebsd-bugs.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-bugs>,
	<mailto:freebsd-bugs-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-bugs>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-bugs-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-bugs>,
	<mailto:freebsd-bugs-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 23:17:28 -0000

On 13-Oct-2003 John-Mark Gurney wrote:
> John Polstra wrote this message on Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 09:37 -0700:
>>
>> I disagree.  The current behavior is not correct.  It is inconsistent
>> with the longstanding behavior of both poll() and select().  Also,
>> from a practical standpoint, returning immediately instead of
>> waiting for the timeout to expire makes writing a typical event loop
>> more awkward.  It requires the addition of a special case in the
>> application code to deal with the situation where no events are being
>> awaited.  That's not necessary when using poll() or select().
> 
> Simple fix, you wait for a single event, adding a struct kevent such as:
>       struct kevent ke;
>     ret = kevent(qfd, NULL, 0, &ke, 1, &ts);
> 
> makes it wait the full 10 seconds.  so, are you suggesting that we change
> the behavior to wait for the timeout to expire before we return ANY
> events? (because that is what your suggesting).

That's not what really what I was suggesting, but after thinking it
over some more I think I agree that it's OK as it stands.  Because
you can use kevent() to register events, or wait for events, or both,
I guess it makes sense to ignore the timeout entirely when no events
could possibly be returned.  Sorry for the noise.

John