This rebases and revises #16003 for clarity of review.
Aims to fix #18911.
<!--e57a25ab6845829454e8d69fc972939a-->
The following sections might be updated with supplementary metadata relevant to reviewers and maintainers.
<!--006a51241073e994b41acfe9ec718e94-->
For detailed information about the code coverage, see the test coverage report.
<!--021abf342d371248e50ceaed478a90ca-->
See the guideline for information on the review process.
| Type | Reviewers |
|---|---|
| Concept ACK | fjahr, TheCharlatan |
If your review is incorrectly listed, please react with 👎 to this comment and the bot will ignore it on the next update.
<!--174a7506f384e20aa4161008e828411d-->
Reviewers, this pull request conflicts with the following ones:
If you consider this pull request important, please also help to review the conflicting pull requests. Ideally, start with the one that should be merged first.
935 | + } 936 | 937 | -#ifdef USE_POLL 938 | - int fd_max = nFD; 939 | -#else 940 | - int fd_max = FD_SETSIZE;
Needs an explanation of why it is ok to take FD_SETSIZE completely out of the equation in the commit description.
Concept ACK
First three commits look good, but the last one needs more descriptions and comments as mentioned by fjahr.
<!--2e250dc3d92b2c9115b66051148d6e47-->
🤔 There hasn't been much activity lately and the CI seems to be failing.
If no one reviewed the current pull request by commit hash, a rebase can be considered. While the CI failure may be a false positive, the CI hasn't been running for some time, so there may be a real issue hiding as well. A rebase triggers the latest CI and makes sure that no silent merge conflicts have snuck in.
Co-authored-by: tryphe <tryphe@noreply.github.com>
And fix the amount of descriptors requested
Co-authored-by: tryphe <tryphe@noreply.github.com>
This was rebased fairly recently, but you have not addressed this open comment #27539 (review) . Are you still working on this?