Shawn O. Pearce schrieb: > Johannes Sixt <j.sixt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> What would you think about passing both channels to the async callback, >> and the communicating parties must agree on which channel they communicate >> by closing the unused one? It would require slight changes to all current >> async users, though. (It also requires in the threaded case that we pass >> dup()s of the pipe channels.) > > Yup, I could do that. I feel like it might be over-engineering the > solution a bit. But I'll respin the patch by splitting it apart, > and doing a bidirectional async here, since you asked nicely. I do agree about the over-engineering aspect. I mentioned it because in one patch in the past Erik Faye-Lund also extended the async infrastructure for bidirectional communication to use it in git-daemon (Windows port). Meanwhile, he's abandoned this approach because there were unsurmountable obstacles elsewhere; so if you introduce bidi now, it would not immediately buy us anything. It's your draw. -- Hannes -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html