From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18D901F453 for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 20:38:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727298AbfBKUi3 (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Feb 2019 15:38:29 -0500 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([104.130.231.41]:40450 "HELO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1726104AbfBKUi3 (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Feb 2019 15:38:29 -0500 Received: (qmail 7993 invoked by uid 109); 11 Feb 2019 20:38:31 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with SMTP; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 20:38:31 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 17326 invoked by uid 111); 11 Feb 2019 20:38:39 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with (ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) SMTP; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 15:38:39 -0500 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 11 Feb 2019 15:38:27 -0500 Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2019 15:38:27 -0500 From: Jeff King To: Jonathan Tan Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, steadmon@google.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/8] remote-curl: in v2, fill credentials if needed Message-ID: <20190211203827.GA9010@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20190206212928.GB12737@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20190211192054.80935-1-jonathantanmy@google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20190211192054.80935-1-jonathantanmy@google.com> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 11:20:54AM -0800, Jonathan Tan wrote: > > In the case of proxy_request(), we don't know ahead of time whether the > > request is large or not; we just proxy the data through. And we don't do > > the probe thing at all. So wouldn't we dropping some data for the > > follow-up request? > > Thanks - I'll look into this. Maybe the best way is to somehow make the > v2 code path also use post_rpc() - I'll see if that's possible. Yeah, that makes sense. > In the meantime, do you have any other opinions on the other patches, > besides introducing a prereq [1]? I don't have any strong opinions for > or against this, so I didn't reply, but I slightly prefer not having the > prereq so that test readers and authors don't need to juggle so many > variables in their heads. I think Ævar convinced me that the way you've done it is the right way, so ignore my earlier comments. :) I just took another pass and left a few very minor nits, but it all looks good overall. > If everything looks good, I'll suggest that we drop this patch from this > patch set for me to work on it independently. (Having said that, this > patch set is based on js/protocol-advertise-multi, which is still under > review, so it is not so urgent.) Yeah, that's fine by me (with or without my nits addressed). -Peff