On 2015-01-15 12:42, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Rafał Miłecki <zaj...@gmail.com>
> ---
> usock.c | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> usock.h | 11 +++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 41 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/usock.c b/usock.c
> index 04ed4ee..39909c1 100644
> --- a/usock.c
> +++ b/usock.c
> @@ -117,3 +117,33 @@ int usock(int type, const char *host, const char
> *service) {
> usock_set_flags(sock, type);
> return sock;
> }
> +
> +int usock_wait_ready(int fd, int msecs) {
> + fd_set fds;
> + struct timeval tv;
> + int res;
> +
> + FD_ZERO(&fds);
> + FD_SET(fd, &fds);
> +
> + tv.tv_sec = msecs / 1000;
> + tv.tv_usec = (msecs % 1000) * 1000;
> +
> + res = select(fd + 1, NULL, &fds, NULL, &tv);
Wouldn't it be better to use poll() here? The fd bitmask crap that
select uses is quite ugly.
- Felix
_______________________________________________
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
