From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.1 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 127561FD99 for ; Wed, 10 Aug 2016 19:38:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S935152AbcHJTi0 (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Aug 2016 15:38:26 -0400 Received: from mail-wm0-f65.google.com ([74.125.82.65]:34195 "EHLO mail-wm0-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S934947AbcHJTiY (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Aug 2016 15:38:24 -0400 Received: by mail-wm0-f65.google.com with SMTP id q128so11544177wma.1 for ; Wed, 10 Aug 2016 12:38:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=vMVzNxNdheW9QRZTXjLoDl6TCgJ94TI/caf48lfKh9Y=; b=mS+I1yPys5pJG/BTTSiv2ffkDqW56ZlFyDsMBD9Ki+Ne6T/5GNUXKrR6zo2O2Lf9Q9 UCyIgVbjqFnHNH8DNkYPqv3NM/uAcrQbtAFpXvfaCZl9NMg+sV8hA2ERDxr9Nb/tOFfL BsQ1FoxRVJDT5REaCXcbT/n0nSwOJQ+e5Sx9oSrbRhJK/UaDBvXnlXkKpkdOkZQvAUsj JyNmVxebSot62qQbAnhcXVXkOIcu/1nXECB/iiss6fLIu2x1RDetlOWx0zsD/MHi/R0B DsuAoBSZ5H48Hb0O1h78HgMkPsoiArmml09BUGKCOBF9oBAUI81OMYyDrgSJvMuUNNaP 2+vg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=vMVzNxNdheW9QRZTXjLoDl6TCgJ94TI/caf48lfKh9Y=; b=QCHrCJ/zW+IjSbr/Hjr8ErHIEz6u+CZyH2KPJKGaiZrmjfuZJD2zPbvjWQNHKSiKiz e5jDX4X0l3YWAskrIIT9U0WgMFp4JUvoOdbpliVymcT4/HO8+BUHhdu1olZdrKPsXu9v tcHdX+WgTJDf68pCZCS6s8+qJlWMHyLmh/rn8xMcvh+2n6RkzfHx0mMvRe9wPcQvlZyg KqXpByeaGkieBLRWUc/WvrTDfD8yj+bOahoupmViLPzS+y89+Ojnm253hkvs57DDH1/F pykTHsgCtB93dwXEnOTADP6QQCjT/s8eSbO4kWH1bBekK4s/PznytSprQK1NigbzkeWu ZuUw== X-Gm-Message-State: AEkoouuZ1VWj7BH0s8V6imXKRixl1HPWj1f93KuQ4AbnhPdFtxdz+/mH97k9mewh/1rIcw== X-Received: by 10.28.126.75 with SMTP id z72mr3181314wmc.74.1470835767534; Wed, 10 Aug 2016 06:29:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from slxbook4.ads.autodesk.com ([62.159.156.210]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id p83sm8421128wma.18.2016.08.10.06.29.26 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 10 Aug 2016 06:29:27 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\)) Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 03/15] pkt-line: add `gentle` parameter to format_packet() From: Lars Schneider In-Reply-To: <20160810131541.ovpvgwdxjibae5gy@sigill.intra.peff.net> Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2016 15:29:26 +0200 Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, gitster@pobox.com, jnareb@gmail.com, mlbright@gmail.com, e@80x24.org, Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de, ben@wijen.net Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: References: <20160803164225.46355-1-larsxschneider@gmail.com/> <20160810130411.12419-1-larsxschneider@gmail.com> <20160810130411.12419-4-larsxschneider@gmail.com> <20160810131541.ovpvgwdxjibae5gy@sigill.intra.peff.net> To: Jeff King X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org > On 10 Aug 2016, at 15:15, Jeff King wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 03:03:59PM +0200, larsxschneider@gmail.com wrote: > >> From: Lars Schneider >> >> format_packet() dies if the caller wants to format a packet larger than >> LARGE_PACKET_MAX. Certain callers might prefer an error response instead. > > I am not sure I agree here. Certainly I see the usefulness of gently > handling a failure to write(). But if you are passing in too-large > buffers, isn't that a bug in the program? > > How would you recover, except by splitting up the content? That might > not be possible depending on how you are using the pkt-lines. And even > if it is, wouldn't it be simpler to split it up before sending it to > format_packet()? Good argument. I agree - this patch should be dropped. Thanks, Lars