From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Karl Wiberg Subject: Re: [PATCH] Work around performance bug in subprocess.Popen.communicate() Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 10:12:20 +0200 Message-ID: <20090814081220.GA24722@lux.e.vtech> References: <20090731093632.7018.24435.stgit@october.e.vtech> <20090804085125.GB27452@lux.e.vtech> <20090814062149.GA23179@lux.e.vtech> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Catalin Marinas , git@vger.kernel.org To: Erik Sandberg X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Aug 14 10:12:37 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1Mbrts-0005eb-SX for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Fri, 14 Aug 2009 10:12:37 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756559AbZHNIMZ (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Aug 2009 04:12:25 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756554AbZHNIMZ (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Aug 2009 04:12:25 -0400 Received: from [62.20.90.206] ([62.20.90.206]:48091 "EHLO lux.e.vtech" rhost-flags-FAIL-FAIL-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755353AbZHNIMY (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Aug 2009 04:12:24 -0400 Received: from lux.e.vtech (lux.e.vtech [127.0.0.1]) by lux.e.vtech (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n7E8CKpv024750; Fri, 14 Aug 2009 10:12:20 +0200 Received: (from kha@localhost) by lux.e.vtech (8.14.2/8.14.2/Submit) id n7E8CKFm024748; Fri, 14 Aug 2009 10:12:20 +0200 X-Authentication-Warning: lux.e.vtech: kha set sender to kha@virtutech.com using -f Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Manual-Spam-Check: kha@virtutech.com, clean User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On 2009-08-14 09:26:06 +0200, Erik Sandberg wrote: > Wouldn't it be better to only use the write() workaround when > sys.version indicates that the Python bug may be present, and use > communicate() properly otherwise? In my opinion: no. The workaround has no negative effect (since we know that git is well-behaved). Making it conditional would only make the code more complex, without gaining us anything. -- Karl Wiberg, Virtutech