Re: Asking for the reversion of the pselect() patch
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 13:04:19 +0100
2007/3/11, Daniel Stenberg wrote:
> Ok, it has now been reverted, and attached is the (reverted) patch.
> Can you elaborate on what details of it you think are bad and what can be done
> to fix them?
I'm short on time right now. I'll do it later today or tomorrow.
> I think we can (and should) make the change that allows the progress callback
> to be called more frequently in a separate change that I don't think anyone
> would mind or argue much about. No need to combine these two as they're
> somewhat unrelated.
Yes they are unrelated, and I have no problem with allowing the
progress callback being called more frequently.
-- -=[Yang]=-Received on 2007-03-11