Re: wait_reading_process_ouput hangs in certain cases (w/ patches)

[Paul Eggert <eggert@cs.ucla.edu>]

On 11/14/2017 08:23 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> And also the problem you are talking about, because I'm not sure I  > understand it well enough.
I doubt whether anyone understands the problem well enough, which is why 
I have been asking questions about the proposed solution - which as far 
as I can see, is more of a band-aid rather than a real fix. To help move 
this forward, I just reread the original bug report here:

https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2017-10/msg00743.html

and I have some further questions that may help understand what's going 
on. The bug report said:

> flyspell.el ... waits for output from its spellchecker process  > through accept-process-output and specifies that specific process as 
 > wait_proc. Now depending on timing (race), > 
wait_reading_process_output can call the pending timers... which in > 
turn can call accept-process-output again. This almost always leads > to 
the spellchecker output being read back in full, so there is no > more 
data left to be read. Thus the original accept-process-output, > which 
called wait_reading_process_output, will wait for the data to > become 
available forever since it has no way to know that those have > already 
been read.
When this happens, it appears that the original accept-process-output 
acted by calling wait_reading_process (0, 0, 0, 0, Qnil, PROC, 0) where 
PROC is the ispell-process. First, is that correct? (If not, my 
remaining questions may be a wild goose chase....)

This meant the original wait_reading_process did the following: set wait 
= INFINITY, run the timers (which apparently call wait_reading_process 
recursively), then check whether update_tick != process_tick (line 5182 
of process.c in commit 79108894dbcd642121466bb6af6c98c6a56e9233). Is 
update_tick equal to process_tick in the problematic call? I'll assume 
so, but please check this. (If not, my remaining questions may need to 
be changed.)

Next, the original wait_reading_process output checks whether 
wait_proc->raw_status_new is nonzero (line 5210). Is it nonzero? For 
now, I'll assume it is zero. (If not, my remaining questions may need to 
be changed.)

Next, the original wait_reading_process_output checks whether (! EQ 
(wait_proc->status, Qrun) && ! connecting_status (wait_proc->status)) 
(line 5213). Does this check succeed? For now, I'll assume this check 
returns false. (If not, then we need to understand why.)

Next, the original wait_reading_process_output recomputes the input wait 
masks, sets check_delay = 0, check_write = true, no_avail = 0, timeout = 
timer_delay (line 5355), and so forth. This means it wiil call select 
with a nonzero timeout, even though we don't want it to do that: we want 
wait_reading_process_output to return 0, because it attempted to receive 
input but got none.

The changes you're proposing essentially kick the code so that it 
pretends that it read some bytes, even though it didn't (because the 
bytes were actually read and processed by a subroutine), causing it to 
exit the loop (and return nonzero instead of zero -- why?). But isn't 
this kick what the update_tick != process_tick (line 5182) check is 
supposed to be doing? And if so, why isn't that check working for your 
case? Is it because the code is forgetting to increment a tick count?

This above sort of reasoning is the sort of thing that needs to be done 
with this sort of change to such an intricate part of the Emacs code.