On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 05:15:08PM +0100, Stefan Fritsch wrote: > On Monday 23 January 2012, Joe Orton wrote: > > I think I was not clear enough here: yes, the non-blocking read > > must be followed by blocking reads. > > Right, that makes sense.
Great. Many eyes on r1234848 and r1234899 rather welcome. It seems to do the right thing now, but I am worried I'm missing some subtlety of the "async"ness here. Joe
