[#81492] [Ruby trunk Feature#13618] [PATCH] auto fiber schedule for rb_wait_for_single_fd and rb_waitpid — normalperson@...
Issue #13618 has been reported by normalperson (Eric Wong).
12 messages
2017/06/01
[#88695] Re: [Ruby trunk Feature#13618] [PATCH] auto fiber schedule for rb_wait_for_single_fd and rb_waitpid
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2018/08/27
> https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/13618
[#81569] [Ruby trunk Feature#12589] VM performance improvement proposal — vmakarov@...
Issue #12589 has been updated by vmakarov (Vladimir Makarov).
3 messages
2017/06/04
[#81581] [Ruby trunk Bug#13632] Not processable interrupt queue for a thread after it's notified that FD is closed in some other thread. — sir.nickolas@...
Issue #13632 has been reported by nvashchenko (Nikolay Vashchenko).
4 messages
2017/06/05
[#81590] Re: [ruby-cvs:66197] ko1:r59023 (trunk): revert r59020 because it may fail some tests sometimes on some environment (http://ci.rvm.jp/). This revert is to check the reason of failures. — Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
ko1@ruby-lang.org wrote:
5 messages
2017/06/06
[#81591] Re: [ruby-cvs:66197] ko1:r59023 (trunk): revert r59020 because it may fail some tests sometimes on some environment (http://ci.rvm.jp/). This revert is to check the reason of failures.
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2017/06/06
Eric Wong <normalperson@yhbt.net> wrote:
[#81596] Re: [ruby-cvs:66203] Re: Re: ko1:r59023 (trunk): revert r59020 because it may fail some tests sometimes on some environment (http://ci.rvm.jp/). This revert is to check the reason of failures.
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2017/06/06
Eric Wong <normalperson@yhbt.net> wrote:
[#81825] [Ruby trunk Feature#13697] [PATCH]: futex based thread primitives — normalperson@...
Issue #13697 has been reported by normalperson (Eric Wong).
3 messages
2017/06/29
[ruby-core:81846] Re: [Ruby trunk Feature#13696] Add exchange and noreplace options to File.rename
From:
Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
Date:
2017-06-30 08:19:32 UTC
List:
ruby-core #81846
nobu@ruby-lang.org wrote: > Is "atomically" important? > If no, it'd be possible to implement without kernel support. Yes, atomicity is an important distinction. We should not try to implement this non-atomically without kernel support; it will quietly break code which expects the atomicity. I am recalling similar problems around posix_fallocate in glibc: https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15661 Unsubscribe: <mailto:ruby-core-request@ruby-lang.org?subject=unsubscribe> <http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-core>