Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Andy Whitcroft <apw@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> We have an xread() wrapper to help us with those nasty
>> interrupt returns and yet we fail to use it consistently.
>> This patch updates those plain read()'s which do not
>> have any handling for errors, or which treat those errors
>> as user visible fatal errors.
>>
>> This feels right to me, but perhaps there is some good
>> reason that things are done this way ... if so could
>> someone elighten me.
>
> Thanks.
>
> I do not think any of the changes you did introduced new bugs,
> but I think some of them are still wrong. xread() protects us
> from EINTR happening before any byte is read, but it can still
> give a short read. Many callers have a loop like this:
>
> do {
> size = xread(...);
> yet_to_go -= size;
> } while (yet_to_go);
>
> but some are not (e.g. add_excludes_from_file_1() in dir.c
> expects xread() does not return before reading full buffer).
Yes, that is true. I was going to fix that in the next step with the
writes. But yes thats likely to involve them becoming 'read_in_full'
style thing and in fact churn us more.
Ignore this one and I'll look to do it 'right'.
-apw
-
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