From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
To: Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com>
Cc: "Christian Couder" <christian.couder@gmail.com>,
git@vger.kernel.org, "Junio C Hamano" <gitster@pobox.com>,
"SZEDER Gábor" <szeder.dev@gmail.com>,
"Derrick Stolee" <dstolee@microsoft.com>,
"Christian Couder" <chriscool@tuxfamily.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] fetch-pack: try harder to read an ERR packet
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2020 04:33:36 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200428083336.GA2405176@coredump.intra.peff.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200422232744.GA19100@syl.local>
On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 05:27:44PM -0600, Taylor Blau wrote:
> > - if (write_in_full(fd, buf->buf, buf->len) < 0)
> > + if (write_in_full(fd, buf->buf, buf->len) < 0) {
>
> This makes sense; if 'write_in_full' fails, we want to go into the
> error-handling case below.
>
> But, I wonder if we could do better than re-using 'write_in_full' here.
> We definitely do want to write 'buf->len' bytes overall, but what
> happens when a 'write()' fails? I think it's at _that_ point we want to
> try and read a packet or two off from the remote.
>
> What if instead this looked something like:
>
> const char *p = buf;
> ssize_t total = 0;
>
> while (count > 0) {
> ssize_t written = xwrite(fd, p, count);
> if (written < 0)
> return -1;
> /* note the change on this line */
> if (!written && packet_reader_read(reader) == PACKET_READ_EOF) {
> errno = ENOSPC;
> return -1;
> }
> count -= written;
> p += written;
> total += written;
> }
>
> return total;
>
> That is basically the definition of 'write_in_full', but when we didn't
> get a chance to write anything, then we try to read one packet.
I'm not sure I understand what this is trying to do. If write_in_full()
returns an error, then we know that write() just failed, and it would be
appropriate to check errno at that point and decide whether to read a
packet.
The code you've written above doesn't make sense to me. If we see an
error, we'd return _before_ doing any packet_reader_read() stuff. We'd
trigger it only when write() returns 0. But it should only do that if we
fed it 0 bytes, which we know we'd never pass (because we wouldn't run
the loop if count==0).
-Peff
prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-04-28 8:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-04-22 16:33 [RFC PATCH] fetch-pack: try harder to read an ERR packet Christian Couder
2020-04-22 23:27 ` Taylor Blau
2020-04-28 7:39 ` Christian Couder
2020-04-28 8:33 ` Jeff King [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20200428083336.GA2405176@coredump.intra.peff.net \
--to=peff@peff.net \
--cc=chriscool@tuxfamily.org \
--cc=christian.couder@gmail.com \
--cc=dstolee@microsoft.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=me@ttaylorr.com \
--cc=szeder.dev@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://80x24.org/mirrors/git.git
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).