On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 12:31:33PM +0200, Johannes Sixt wrote: > > builtin/remote-ext.c uses a loop that looks very much like what > write_in_full() does; transport-helper.c's checks for EAGAIN look very > similar to xwrite(). Why can't you reuse these functions? Ah, the request sending loop (send_git_request()), not the bidirectional loop (my bad). Yes, that function can be simplified a lot (patch sent). > > [1] Some systems return EAGAIN on read/write failed due to blocking (with > > EAGAIN == EWOULDBLOCK), others return EWOULDBLOCK. > > But shouldn't then xwrite() and xread() be extended to check also for > EWOULDBLOCK? Based on what I understand, yes. read() and write() that fails due to blocking being needed but disabled returns EWOULDBLOCK, which may or may not be the same as EAGAIN, so the return value in no-blocking case equals EAGAIN only if EAGAIN == EWOULDBLOCK, which isn't guaranteed. Have a macro that does the non-fatal error check? -Ilari -- 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