Conrad T. Pino wrote: >I'm not so sure disk files are always ready. They may use this approach >because I can't find a way to find out if a disk file will block without >actually launching an asynchronous read/write operation which raises the >problem of what to do with the data when the operation suceeds!!! > >
Well, if wouldn't work in the select() replacement, but if it were implemented in fd_buffer_input, then extra data could be stored in the buffer structure. I'd prefer the select() replacement, but if needed this could be used as a fallback. >Can you describe the general I/O concurrency strategy CVS uses or wants >to use on POSIX platforms? > Hrm? If there was a select() function that worked to the POSIX semantics I already forwarded, CVS's needs should be satisfied. >I assume you've seen my prior message about the bad behaviour existing >in version 1.12.12 also. Does it make sense to probe versions earlier >then 1.12.12 to see if we can revert to that method? > > No. There was a good reason for moving to fd_buffers from stdio buffers, though I can't recall it off the top of my head, and it would be pretty hard to extricate them now anyhow. Regards, Derek -- Derek R. Price CVS Solutions Architect Ximbiot <http://ximbiot.com> v: +1 717.579.6168 f: +1 717.234.3125 <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _______________________________________________ Bug-cvs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-cvs
