From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64D62C00140 for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2022 15:40:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229670AbiHBPkB (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Aug 2022 11:40:01 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:41388 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229575AbiHBPkA (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Aug 2022 11:40:00 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net (cloud.peff.net [104.130.231.41]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B71821276B for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2022 08:39:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 3936 invoked by uid 109); 2 Aug 2022 15:39:59 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with ESMTP; Tue, 02 Aug 2022 15:39:59 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 32686 invoked by uid 111); 2 Aug 2022 15:39:58 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with (TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 02 Aug 2022 11:39:58 -0400 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2022 11:39:57 -0400 From: Jeff King To: git@vger.kernel.org Cc: Johannes Schindelin Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] pipe_command(): mark stdin descriptor as non-blocking Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Aug 02, 2022 at 12:13:07AM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > - more importantly, I'm not sure of the portability implications of > the fix. This is our first use of O_NONBLOCK outside of the > compat/simple-ipc unix-socket code. Do we need to abstract this > behind a compat/ layer for Windows? So I think the answer is pretty clearly "yes", from the Windows CI results: run-command.c:1429:18: 'O_NONBLOCK' undeclared (first use in this function) flags |= O_NONBLOCK; ^~~~~~~~~~ It looks like we'd have the option of either adding F_GETFL/F_SETFL support to compat/mingw.c's fake fcntl() function, or adding a compat/nonblock.c that abstracts the whole thing. I'd prefer the latter, as it makes the interface a bit narrower. But I'm not sure what should go on the Windows side of that #ifdef. Unlike some other spots, I don't think we can just make it a noop, or Windows will be subject to the same deadlock (unless for some reason its write() does behave differently?). -Peff