Laszlo Ersek <ler...@redhat.com> writes: > On 07/16/13 20:57, Anthony Liguori wrote: >> Laszlo Ersek <ler...@redhat.com> writes: >> >>> The g_io_channel_write_chars() documentation states, >>> >>> bytes_written: The number of bytes written. This can be nonzero even if >>> the return value is not G_IO_STATUS_NORMAL. [...] >>> >>> io_channel_send() could lose such bytes before. >>> >>> Furthermore, the (status == G_IO_STATUS_EOF) condition used to evaluate to >>> constant false whenever it was reached. When that condition actually held, >>> it always led to -1 / EINVAL. This patch (almost) distinguishes >>> G_IO_STATUS_EOF only when no bytes have been written, and then treats it >>> as an error. >> >> Just for my own benefit, I always assume G_IO_STATUS_EOF cannot happen >> if bytes_written > 0. I see what you mean by the comment but do you >> have any reason to believe this happens in practice? > > In my opinion, G_IO_STATUS_EOF doesn't make any sense whatsoever for a > write operation (for count>0) if glib kept any resemblance to write(), > and should never happen in practice.
Okay, thanks! I'll give other folks a chance to look at this series and then apply in a day or so. Regards, Anthony Liguori > > The awkward commit message only captures the fact that I didn't forget > about G_IO_STATUS_EOF, I considered it explicitly. > >> Reviewed-by: Anthony Liguori <aligu...@us.ibm.com> > > Thanks! > > Laszlo
