[ViewVC] Diff of: cvs/libev/ev.pod

Comparing libev/ev.pod (file contents):
Revision 1.432 by root, Sat Apr 26 14:28:48 2014 UTC vs.
Revision 1.437 by root, Sun Oct 11 15:55:48 2015 UTC

 GNU/Linux system for example, C<getpid> is actually a simple 5-insn sequence
 without a system call and thus I<very> fast, but my GNU/Linux system also has
 C<pthread_atfork> which is even faster).
 The big advantage of this flag is that you can forget about fork (and
-forget about forgetting to tell libev about forking) when you use this
+forget about forgetting to tell libev about forking, although you still
-flag.
+have to ignore C<SIGPIPE>) when you use this flag.
 This flag setting cannot be overridden or specified in the C<LIBEV_FLAGS>
 environment variable.
 =item C<EVFLAG_NOINOTIFY>
 If you need dynamically allocated loops it is better to use C<ev_loop_new>
 and C<ev_loop_destroy>.
 =item ev_loop_fork (loop)
-This function sets a flag that causes subsequent C<ev_run> iterations to
+This function sets a flag that causes subsequent C<ev_run> iterations
-reinitialise the kernel state for backends that have one. Despite the
+to reinitialise the kernel state for backends that have one. Despite
-name, you can call it anytime, but it makes most sense after forking, in
+the name, you can call it anytime you are allowed to start or stop
-the child process. You I<must> call it (or use C<EVFLAG_FORKCHECK>) in the
+watchers (except inside an C<ev_prepare> callback), but it makes most
+sense after forking, in the child process. You I<must> call it (or use
-child before resuming or calling C<ev_run>.
+C<EVFLAG_FORKCHECK>) in the child before resuming or calling C<ev_run>.
+In addition, if you want to reuse a loop (via this function or
+C<EVFLAG_FORKCHECK>), you I<also> have to ignore C<SIGPIPE>.
 Again, you I<have> to call it on I<any> loop that you want to re-use after
 a fork, I<even if you do not plan to use the loop in the parent>. This is
 because some kernel interfaces *cough* I<kqueue> *cough* do funny things
 during fork.
 The relative timeouts are calculated relative to the C<ev_now ()>
 time. This is usually the right thing as this timestamp refers to the time
 of the event triggering whatever timeout you are modifying/starting. If
 you suspect event processing to be delayed and you I<need> to base the
-timeout on the current time, use something like this to adjust for this:
+timeout on the current time, use something like the following to adjust
+for it:
-   ev_timer_set (&timer, after + ev_now () - ev_time (), 0.);
+   ev_timer_set (&timer, after + (ev_time () - ev_now ()), 0.);
 If the event loop is suspended for a long time, you can also force an
 update of the time returned by C<ev_now ()> by calling C<ev_now_update
-()>.
+()>, although that will push the event time of all outstanding events
+further into the future.
 =head3 The special problem of unsynchronised clocks
 Modern systems have a variety of clocks - libev itself uses the normal
 "wall clock" clock and, if available, the monotonic clock (to avoid time
 Prepare and check watchers are often (but not always) used in pairs:
 prepare watchers get invoked before the process blocks and check watchers
 afterwards.
-You I<must not> call C<ev_run> or similar functions that enter
+You I<must not> call C<ev_run> (or similar functions that enter the
-the current event loop from either C<ev_prepare> or C<ev_check>
+current event loop) or C<ev_loop_fork> from either C<ev_prepare> or
-watchers. Other loops than the current one are fine, however. The
+C<ev_check> watchers. Other loops than the current one are fine,
-rationale behind this is that you do not need to check for recursion in
+however. The rationale behind this is that you do not need to check
-those watchers, i.e. the sequence will always be C<ev_prepare>, blocking,
+for recursion in those watchers, i.e. the sequence will always be
-C<ev_check> so if you have one watcher of each kind they will always be
+C<ev_prepare>, blocking, C<ev_check> so if you have one watcher of each
-called in pairs bracketing the blocking call.
+kind they will always be called in pairs bracketing the blocking call.
 Their main purpose is to integrate other event mechanisms into libev and
 their use is somewhat advanced. They could be used, for example, to track
 variable changes, implement your own watchers, integrate net-snmp or a
 coroutine library and lots more. They are also occasionally useful if
 and calls it in the wrong process, the fork handlers will be invoked, too,
 of course.
 =head3 The special problem of life after fork - how is it possible?
-Most uses of C<fork()> consist of forking, then some simple calls to set
+Most uses of C<fork ()> consist of forking, then some simple calls to set
 up/change the process environment, followed by a call to C<exec()>. This
 sequence should be handled by libev without any problems.
 This changes when the application actually wants to do event handling
 in the child, or both parent in child, in effect "continuing" after the
 To embed libev, see L</EMBEDDING>, but in short, it's easiest to create two
 files, F<my_ev.h> and F<my_ev.c> that include the respective libev files:
    // my_ev.h
    #define EV_CB_DECLARE(type)   struct my_coro *cb;
-   #define EV_CB_INVOKE(watcher) switch_to ((watcher)->cb);
+   #define EV_CB_INVOKE(watcher) switch_to ((watcher)->cb)
    #include "../libev/ev.h"
    // my_ev.c
    #define EV_H "my_ev.h"
    #include "../libev/ev.c"

Diff Legend

-–
+Removed lines
-+
+Added lines
-<
+Changed lines
->
+Changed lines

Comparing libev/ev.pod (file contents): Revision 1.432 by root, Sat Apr 26 14:28:48 2014 UTC vs. Revision 1.437 by root, Sun Oct 11 15:55:48 2015 UTC

Diff Legend

Comparing libev/ev.pod (file contents):
Revision 1.432 by root, Sat Apr 26 14:28:48 2014 UTC vs.
Revision 1.437 by root, Sun Oct 11 15:55:48 2015 UTC