# Re: \[PATCH\] compat: Add another rudimentary poll() emulation

- From: Marko Kreen \<hidden\>
- Date: 2016-06-15 22:48:52 
- List: git
- Page: https://ratatoskr.run/git/2016/06/7465702
- Thread: https://ratatoskr.run/git/2016/06/7465679/t.md

```text
On 5/27/10, Erik Faye-Lund [ref] wrote:
> On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 3:29 PM, Marko Kreen [ref] wrote:
>  > On 5/27/10, Erik Faye-Lund [ref] wrote:
>  >> On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 1:00 PM, Erik Faye-Lund
>  >>  [ref] wrote:
>  >>  > On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 12:10 PM, Jonathan Nieder [ref] wrote:
>  >>  >> Implement the subset of poll() semantics needed by git in terms of
>  >>  >> select(), for use by the Interix port.  Inspired by commit 6ed807f
>  >>  >> (Windows: A rudimentary poll() emulation, 2007-12-01).
>  >>  >>
>  >>  >
>  >>  > A possible problem with this approach is that the maximum number of
>  >>  > file descriptors poll can handle limited by RLIMIT_NOFILE, whereas the
>  >>  > maximum number of file descriptors select can handle is limited by
>  >>  > FD_SETSIZE.
>  >>  >
>  >>  > I don't think this is a big problem in reality, though - both values
>  >>  > seem to be pretty high in most implementations. And IIRC git-daemon is
>  >>  > the only one who needs more than 2, and it doesn't even check
>  >>  > RLIMIT_NOFILE.
>  >>  >
>  >>
>  >>
>  >> To be clear: I think this strategy is the best option (at least for
>  >>  non-Windows, where select() might be our only option).
>  >>
>  >>  But perhaps you should include a check along the lines of this:
>  >>
>  >>  if (nfds > FD_SETSIZE)
>  >>         return errno = EINVAL, error("poll: nfds must be below %d", FD_SETSIZE);
>  >>
>  >>  Just so we can know when the code fails :)
>  >
>  > Well, per your own FD_SET example, the FD_SETSIZE on windows
>  > means different thing than FD_SETSIZE on old-style bitmap-based
>  > select() implementation.
>  >
>  > On Unix, it's max fd number + 1, on windows it's max count.
>  >
>
>
> Are you sure this applies for all Unix, not just some given Unix-y system?

Not sure.  Just pointing out that the above check is not
universal enough.

-- 
marko
```