> > I *do* understand the perspective of the virfdstream implementation to > > read chunks of 256kB (and not 256kB minus 24). I do understand that - > > from a simplicity perspective - it makes sense to push out one message > > from the transfer queue at a time, but is the intent that the average > > transfer then becomes 128kB minus 12 bytes? > > Ok, this is an implementation flaw in virfdstream. > > There are two scenarios (1) reading from a local file - fdstream spawns > a background helper thread; (1) reading from a non-file - fdstream > reads directly from the FD. > > When reading directly from the FD, the buffer passed to virFDStreamRead > will be filled with as much data as is available. > > When reading via the helper thread, the buffer passed to virFDStreamRead > will only be filled with the data from the 1st pending message from the > background thread.
I've studied the code and I see what you are saying indeed. As soon as the data in that message runs out the function prepares to return and just before it returns, pops the message from the transfer queue. It could instead go back to the beginning (nearly) to grab the next message and repeat itself. I guess that's not too hard to add. > We need to fix the latter so that it will fill the buffer with data from > *all* pending messages from the thread, until the buffer is full. Ok. I think I understand what needs to happen here. Do you mean me by "we" or were you looking at someone who's part of the "regulars"? If it's me, I *think* I can do this, but I'll need a bit of help to confirm my understanding that *any* "hole" this function encounters, is an unexpected message; I mean: should this function - after it's been changed - take into account that a "STREAM_HOLE" message may come in and that it needs to stop processing data, but it should *not* raise an error (as it would do now, because STREAM_HOLE messages are not expected right now). Kind regards, -- Bye, Erik. http://efficito.com -- Hosted accounting and ERP. Robust and Flexible. No vendor lock-in.
