Re: [PATCH] Fix blocking read timeouts at a small probability

On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 09:41:29AM -0500, Chet Ramey wrote: > Just for testing, not for any real use case. > > > He also provided me with his new test case > > to see the interaction with SIGCHLD. The failure of this test case > > seems to have also involved SIGCHLD in the previous devel Bash. Now

Re: [PATCH] Fix blocking read timeouts at a small probability

On 2/12/21 8:20 PM, Koichi Murase wrote: I personally don't use this particularly short timeout, but this shows that the masked SIGCHLD is again another ``partial'' fix. Yesterday I actually received an email from felix that he has actually posted the same issue on the mailing list last October

Re: [PATCH] Fix blocking read timeouts at a small probability

2021年2月12日(金) 22:56 Chet Ramey : > >>> Thank you. Yes, if there is a simpler but still robust and reliable > >>> way to do it, that would be nice. > >> > >> There is, in fact, a simpler way for this case. Blocking SIGCHLD around the > >> calls to zread and its siblings fixes the problem. It might n

Re: [PATCH] Fix blocking read timeouts at a small probability

On 2/12/21 1:51 AM, Koichi Murase wrote: 2021年2月12日(金) 4:27 Chet Ramey : Thank you. Yes, if there is a simpler but still robust and reliable way to do it, that would be nice. There is, in fact, a simpler way for this case. Blocking SIGCHLD around the calls to zread and its siblings fixes the p

Re: [PATCH] Fix blocking read timeouts at a small probability

2021年2月12日(金) 4:27 Chet Ramey : > > Thank you. Yes, if there is a simpler but still robust and reliable > > way to do it, that would be nice. > > There is, in fact, a simpler way for this case. Blocking SIGCHLD around the > calls to zread and its siblings fixes the problem. It might not be enough >

Re: [PATCH] Fix blocking read timeouts at a small probability

On 2/10/21 11:59 AM, Koichi Murase wrote: 2021年2月10日(水) 23:40 Chet Ramey : On 2/10/21 10:21 AM, Chet Ramey wrote: Thanks for the analysis and patch. I'll take a look. At first glance, I would like to find a simpler way to do it. Thank you. Yes, if there is a simpler but still robust and relia

Re: [PATCH] Fix blocking read timeouts at a small probability

2021年2月11日(木) 7:28 Chet Ramey : > On 2/10/21 6:21 PM, Koichi Murase wrote: > > 2021年2月11日(木) 7:02 Chet Ramey : > >> You'll have to hook the timeout code into the pselect/select calls, as you > >> suspect. Take a shot and it and send me what you come up with. > > > > Thank you for the comment. I'll

Re: [PATCH] Fix blocking read timeouts at a small probability

On 2/10/21 6:21 PM, Koichi Murase wrote: 2021年2月11日(木) 7:02 Chet Ramey : You'll have to hook the timeout code into the pselect/select calls, as you suspect. Take a shot and it and send me what you come up with. Chet Thank you for the comment. I'll try it when I have time this week. Let me k

Re: [PATCH] Fix blocking read timeouts at a small probability

2021年2月11日(木) 7:02 Chet Ramey : > You'll have to hook the timeout code into the pselect/select calls, as you > suspect. Take a shot and it and send me what you come up with. > > Chet Thank you for the comment. I'll try it when I have time this week. Koichi

Re: [PATCH] Fix blocking read timeouts at a small probability

On 2/10/21 11:59 AM, Koichi Murase wrote: I'd also like to know how this is going to work with read -e and readline, since those don't seem to know anything about the timer. OK, that is a good point. I completely forgot about `read -e'. I took a look at `rl_getc (stream)' (lib/readline/input.c

Re: [PATCH] Fix blocking read timeouts at a small probability

2021年2月10日(水) 23:40 Chet Ramey : > On 2/10/21 10:21 AM, Chet Ramey wrote: > > Thanks for the analysis and patch. I'll take a look. At first glance, I > > would like to find a simpler way to do it. Thank you. Yes, if there is a simpler but still robust and reliable way to do it, that would be nice.

Re: [PATCH] Fix blocking read timeouts at a small probability

On 2/10/21 10:21 AM, Chet Ramey wrote: On 2/8/21 9:37 AM, Koichi Murase wrote:    Instead, I believe, it is more natural to use `select(2)', which is    already used to implement `read -t 0'.  In the attached patch    `0001-Use-select-2-for-the-read-timeout.patch', I used `select(2)'    to impl

Re: [PATCH] Fix blocking read timeouts at a small probability

On 2/8/21 9:37 AM, Koichi Murase wrote: Instead, I believe, it is more natural to use `select(2)', which is already used to implement `read -t 0'. In the attached patch `0001-Use-select-2-for-the-read-timeout.patch', I used `select(2)' to implement the timeout of `read(2)'. When `s

[PATCH] Fix blocking read timeouts at a small probability

Configuration Information [Automatically generated, do not change]: Machine: x86_64 OS: linux-gnu Compiler: gcc Compilation CFLAGS: -g -O2 -Wno-parentheses -Wno-format-security uname output: Linux chatoyancy 5.6.13-100.fc30.x86_64 #1 SMP Fri May 15 00:36:06 UTC 2020 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux M