Re: [PATCH 01/10] strbuf: Add strbuf_read_noblock

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 9:44 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 9:30 AM, Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> So I think we would probably want to treat EAGAIN specially: return -1
>> to signal to the caller but _don't_ truncate the strbuf.
>
> Yeah, "don't truncate" is needed.
>
>> Arguably we should actually return the number of bytes we _did_ read,
>> but then caller cannot easily tell the difference between EOF and
>> EAGAIN.
>
> Why can't it check errno==EAGAIN/EWOULDBLOCK?

Grepping through Gits sources, there are no occurrences of
explicitly setting  O_NONBLOCK except for the newly introduced
spot in the followup patch in run-command (yes we do poll there).

So how would I find out if a fd is blocking or not in the 82 cases
of strbuf_read? (Now I naively assume they would all block.)

We could also expose the flags in the API. I think IGNORE_EAGAIN
might not be the best now, but rather a NO_TRUNCATE flag would do.
--
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



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]