From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 0/10] pkt-line and remote-curl cleanups server Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 04:33:36 -0500 Message-ID: <20130218093335.GK5096@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20130216064455.GA27063@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20130216064929.GC22626@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20130217110533.GF6759@elie.Belkin> <20130217192830.GB25096@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20130218014113.GC3221@elie.Belkin> <20130218091203.GB17003@sigill.intra.peff.net> <7vhalaas2b.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Jonathan Nieder , git@vger.kernel.org, "Shawn O. Pearce" To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Feb 18 10:34:04 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1U7N6o-0006ED-Hj for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 10:34:02 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757347Ab3BRJdj (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Feb 2013 04:33:39 -0500 Received: from 75-15-5-89.uvs.iplsin.sbcglobal.net ([75.15.5.89]:51709 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753976Ab3BRJdi (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Feb 2013 04:33:38 -0500 Received: (qmail 17832 invoked by uid 107); 18 Feb 2013 09:35:09 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with ESMTPA; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 04:35:09 -0500 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 18 Feb 2013 04:33:36 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7vhalaas2b.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 01:29:16AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > I just checked, and GitHub also does not send flush packets after ERR. > > Which makes sense; ERR is supposed to end the conversation. > > Hmph. A flush packet was supposed to be a mark to say "all the > packets before this one can be buffered and kept without getting > passed to write(2), but this and all such buffered data _must_ go on > the wire _now_". So in the sense, ERR not followed by a flush may > not even have a chance to be seen on the other end, no? That is > what the comment before the implementation of packet_flush() is all > about. Despite the name, I always thought of packet_flush as more of a signal for the _receiver_, who then knows that they have gotten all of a particular list. In other words, we seem to use it as a sequence point as much as anything (mostly because we immediately write() out any other packets anyway, so there is no flushing to be done; but perhaps there were originally thoughts that we could do more buffering on the writing side). -Peff