From: urlichs@smurf.sub.org (Matthias Urlichs) Subject: Re: select() ? Date: 13 Feb 1993 20:44:41 +0100
In comp.os.linux, article <JRS.93Feb12200657@lepton.world.std.com>,
jrs@world.std.com (Rick Sladkey) writes:
> >>>>> On 12 Feb 1993 07:12:57 +0100,
> >>>>> urlichs@smurf.sub.org (Matthias Urlichs) said:
>
> Matthias> Besides, it could be argued that when select times out it
> Matthias> should leave the timeout value alone, since a timeout is
> Matthias> already signalled by returning zero and the timeout value is
> Matthias> likely to be used again.
>
> I don't really like this solution. If you ever have to copy the
> timeval there is no point in preserving the old one for just one
> case.
>
On the other hand, the RPC library code needs that old timeout value
only in that case...
But that's a minor point. The problem is fixed, one way or the other, and
that's all I really care about.
--
Ninety-Ninety Rule of Project Schedules:
The first ninety percent of the task takes ninety percent of
the time, and the last ten percent takes the other ninety percent.
--
=====BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK=====
Version: 2.1
mQBYAitirlIAAAECWLA75SRTAZb8WsAB4kJCAmxM4h01UgErYLqOCOolntDCA502
Zr6rqV39QKwx6tton9AtTgPKrfdz6ufnAL9E45BJgO4zcJBNac3pMwAFEbQoTWF0
dGhpYXMgVXJsaWNocyA8dXJsaWNoc0BzbXVyZi5zdWIub3JnPg==
=FMCO
=====END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK=====
--
Matthias Urlichs -- urlichs@smurf.sub.org -- urlichs@smurf.ira.uka.de /(o\
Humboldtstrasse 7 -- 7500 Karlsruhe 1 -- Germany -- +49-721-9612521 \o)/