From: Johannes Sixt <j.sixt@viscovery.net>
To: Sebastian Schuberth <sschuberth@gmail.com>
Cc: "René Scharfe" <rene.scharfe@lsrfire.ath.cx>,
git@vger.kernel.org, msysgit@googlegroups.com,
"Johannes Schindelin" <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix checkout of large files to network shares under Windows XP
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 14:57:00 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4BCDA49C.4090405@viscovery.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <t2xbdca99241004200542ud4e8ea5azcad918c37bcacf1a@mail.gmail.com>
Am 4/20/2010 14:42, schrieb Sebastian Schuberth:
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 22:43, René Scharfe <rene.scharfe@lsrfire.ath.cx> wrote:
>> Shouldn't the loop be left in the successful case, too? write(2) is
>> allowed to write less than requested, so the caller already needs to
>> deal with that case anyway.
>
> I prefer to make the wrapper as transparent as possible. If a direct
> call to write would not write less than requested, the wrapper should
> not either.
Sure, but René meant the opposite case: When fewer bytes than requested
were written, then you shouldn't retry to write more! That is, you should
exit the loop when write(fd, buf, n) does not return n.
I still find your code unnecessarily hard to read. In particular, you
should extract the non-problematic case out of the loop. If you followed
my suggestion elsewhere in the thread, you wouldn't have to write any
conditionals that 'break' out of a loop.
-- Hannes
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-04-20 12:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-04-19 12:45 [PATCH] Fix checkout of large files to network shares under Windows XP Sebastian Schuberth
2010-04-19 20:41 ` Junio C Hamano
2010-04-20 9:15 ` Johannes Schindelin
2010-04-19 20:43 ` René Scharfe
2010-04-19 22:46 ` Albert Dvornik
2010-04-20 8:18 ` Johannes Sixt
2010-04-20 12:42 ` Sebastian Schuberth
2010-04-20 12:57 ` Johannes Sixt [this message]
2010-04-20 14:21 ` Sebastian Schuberth
2010-04-20 20:49 ` René Scharfe
2010-04-29 20:01 ` René Scharfe
2010-04-30 8:46 ` Johannes Sixt
2010-04-30 9:08 ` Sebastian Schuberth
[not found] ` <290b11b5-5dd5-4b83-a6f5-217797ebd5af@t8g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>
2010-10-16 17:23 ` René Scharfe
2010-10-17 10:54 ` Dmitry Potapov
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
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4BCDA49C.4090405@viscovery.net \
--to=j.sixt@viscovery.net \
--cc=Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=msysgit@googlegroups.com \
--cc=rene.scharfe@lsrfire.ath.cx \
--cc=sschuberth@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.
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 NNTP newsgroup(s).