"Peter N. Lundblad" <peter@famlundblad.se> writes:
> > Not intended, but also not completely unreasonable. Should it ever
> > time out? Someone can interrupt if they're upset, but maybe it's just
> > a really, really slow link...
> >
> Ha, they'll be even more upset when they discover that they can't (easily)
> interrupt;). Suspending, then kill -9 on Unix is the only way I succeeded.
>
> This is a boring problem. If the server stops responding at all, we just
> set a flag and never reach a cancelation check. I don't know how to fix
> this. We want to run cleanup, but we don't want interrupted system calls
> to be restarted.
Why exactly can't they interrput? Because we're trapping the
interrupt signal to handle by polling periodically, and we don't have
any poll calls going on while we wait for the server's response?
If that's the issue, we could either:
a) Untrap the interrupt handler during that wait.
b) Wait for the server in a non-blocking or semi-blocking way.
I'm hand-waving a bit, but are there any solutions along these lines?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Jun 23 17:54:35 2005