| msg196989 - (view) |
Author: Giampaolo Rodola' (giampaolo.rodola) *  |
Date: 2013-09-05 10:58 |
| This is a follow up of issue 16853. I will try to see whether I can come up with a patch later today. |
|
|
| msg197015 - (view) |
Author: Giampaolo Rodola' (giampaolo.rodola) * |
Date: 2013-09-05 17:57 |
| Patch is in attachment. |
|
|
| msg200756 - (view) |
Author: Charles-François Natali (neologix) * |
Date: 2013-10-21 12:03 |
| Just to let you know that I'm not forgetting this issue. I'd just like to iron-out issue #19172 (keys()-like method for selectors), since it could impact the API, to avoid repeated refactoring. |
|
|
| msg202118 - (view) |
Author: STINNER Victor (vstinner) * |
Date: 2013-11-04 11:04 |
| @Giampaolo: Your patch doesn't apply cleanly anymore. Could you update it? Issue #19172 has been fixed, selectors now have a get_map() method. |
|
|
| msg213886 - (view) |
Author: Jesús Cea Avión (jcea) * |
Date: 2014-03-17 19:46 |
| We missed 3.4 :-(. Targeting Python 3.5 now. Giampaolo, could you possibly refresh your patch?. Thanks. |
|
|
| msg213898 - (view) |
Author: Giampaolo Rodola' (giampaolo.rodola) * |
Date: 2014-03-17 21:17 |
| Sorry for not being able to rewrite the patch in time for 3.4. I will provide an updated patch (I need to setup an Open Solaris box first though). The code for poll(), epoll() and /dev/poll will have many similarities, so I think it makes sense to refactor it and use a base class to avoid code duplication, similarly to what I did in my original patch. |
|
|
| msg213900 - (view) |
Author: Guido van Rossum (gvanrossum) * |
Date: 2014-03-17 21:21 |
| I actually prefer some code duplication in this case. Makes the review easier. On Mar 17, 2014 2:17 PM, "Giampaolo Rodola'" <report@bugs.python.org> wrote: > > Giampaolo Rodola' added the comment: > > Sorry for not being able to rewrite the patch in time for 3.4. > I will provide an updated patch (I need to setup an Open Solaris box first > though). > The code for poll(), epoll() and /dev/poll will have many similarities, so > I think it makes sense to refactor it and use a base class to avoid code > duplication, similarly to what I did in my original patch. > > ---------- > > _______________________________________ > Python tracker <report@bugs.python.org> > <http://bugs.python.org/issue18931> > _______________________________________ > |
|
|
| msg213901 - (view) |
Author: Giampaolo Rodola' (giampaolo.rodola) * |
Date: 2014-03-17 21:24 |
| OK, I will provide a patch soon. |
|
|
| msg213909 - (view) |
Author: Jesús Cea Avión (jcea) * |
Date: 2014-03-17 22:54 |
| BDFL talked :-). I can test the patch on a Solaris box, and Python has OpenSolaris buildbots. |
|
|
| msg214008 - (view) |
Author: Giampaolo Rodola' (giampaolo.rodola) * |
Date: 2014-03-18 19:27 |
| Patch in attachment. |
|
|
| msg214016 - (view) |
Author: Charles-François Natali (neologix) * |
Date: 2014-03-18 20:51 |
| Could you regenerate it without --git (it doesn't show under the review tool)? |
|
|
| msg214023 - (view) |
Author: Yury Selivanov (yselivanov) * |
Date: 2014-03-18 21:37 |
| Why there is no 'review' link for the new patch? |
|
|
| msg214027 - (view) |
Author: Guido van Rossum (gvanrossum) * |
Date: 2014-03-18 21:40 |
| review links are only generated for patches that apply cleanly (I don't know to which branch) On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 2:37 PM, Yury Selivanov <report@bugs.python.org>wrote: > > Yury Selivanov added the comment: > > Why there is no 'review' link for the new patch? > > ---------- > > _______________________________________ > Python tracker <report@bugs.python.org> > <http://bugs.python.org/issue18931> > _______________________________________ > |
|
|
| msg214118 - (view) |
Author: Giampaolo Rodola' (giampaolo.rodola) * |
Date: 2014-03-19 18:12 |
| Regenerated without --git. |
|
|
| msg214137 - (view) |
Author: Yury Selivanov (yselivanov) * |
Date: 2014-03-19 21:12 |
| Still no review link. Somehow you managed to upload the first patch correctly. Does the new one apply cleanly on the default branch? |
|
|
| msg214207 - (view) |
Author: Giampaolo Rodola' (giampaolo.rodola) * |
Date: 2014-03-20 11:43 |
| "hg import http://bugs.python.org/file34522/devpoll3.patch" applies cleanly for me. Not sure what else to do. |
|
|
| msg214275 - (view) |
Author: Guido van Rossum (gvanrossum) * |
Date: 2014-03-20 20:35 |
| LGTM, but I don't have a Solaris box to test. I suppose one of you has tested this? Then okay to commit to the default (== 3.5) branch. |
|
|
| msg214280 - (view) |
Author: Roundup Robot (python-dev)  |
Date: 2014-03-20 20:54 |
| New changeset 0a51a516bc70 by Giampaolo Rodola' in branch 'default': Fix issue 18931: selectors module now supports /dev/poll on Solaris. http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/0a51a516bc70 |
|
|
| msg214282 - (view) |
Author: Giampaolo Rodola' (giampaolo.rodola) * |
Date: 2014-03-20 20:57 |
| I successfully tested this on Solaris 11. |
|
|