apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paul Querna <c...@force-elite.com>
Subject Re: svn commit: r109832 -
Date Sun, 05 Dec 2004 21:08:31 GMT
Joe Orton wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 10:35:11AM -0700, Paul Querna wrote:
> 
>>Jeff Trawick wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 00:01:05 -0700, Paul Querna <chip@force-elite.com> 
>>>1) write_full() has the wrong semantics for apr_file_writev();
>>>apr_file_writev() and apr_file_write() are not supposed to block
>>
>>Thanks, I didn't think about the issue of write_full() blocking.
>>r109892 uses apr_file_write(), and adds the check for an under-write
>>as you originally suggested.
> 
> 

> ...and back to the beginning, did you read the original thread on this
> topic?

No, I did not remember or was not aware of the 'original thread'.
I was looking at use iovecs in mod_log_config, and in IRC Justin 
mentioned that the !HAVE_WRITEV implementation sucks.  That started me 
down the path of trying to fix it.

I assume you are talking about this thread in October?
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=109693523200002&r=1&w=2

> The fact that the caller must cope with short writes is exactly
> why the original implementation was valid and correct.  All subsequent
> versions have been variously buggy - the type of tbytes is still wrong. 
> I think this should just be reverted back to the original version.
> 
> joe
> 
> 


Mime
View raw message