On Thu Feb 26, 2026 at 1:40 PM JST, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> On Thu Feb 19, 2026 at 4:30 PM JST, Eliot Courtney wrote:
> <snip>
>> @@ -575,6 +579,39 @@ pub(crate) fn send_command<M>(&mut self, bar: &Bar0,
>> command: M) -> Result
>> Ok(())
>> }
>>
>> + /// Sends `command` to the GSP.
>> + ///
>> + /// The command may be split into multiple messages if it is large.
>> + ///
>> + /// # Errors
>> + ///
>> + /// - `ETIMEDOUT` if space does not become available within the timeout.
>> + /// - `EIO` if the variable payload requested by the command has not
>> been entirely
>> + /// written to by its [`CommandToGsp::init_variable_payload`] method.
>> + ///
>> + /// Error codes returned by the command initializers are propagated
>> as-is.
>> + pub(crate) fn send_command<M>(&mut self, bar: &Bar0, command: M) ->
>> Result
>> + where
>> + M: CommandToGsp,
>> + Error: From<M::InitError>,
>> + {
>> + let mut state = SplitState::new(&command)?;
>> +
>> + self.send_single_command(bar, state.command(command))?;
>
> I think it would be nice to send the actual command (and not the
> `SplitCommand`) when commands don't need to be split. Split commands are
> supposed to be the exception, but the current code makes us use them
> unconditionally.
>
> So something like:
>
> if command_size(&command) <= MAX_CMD_SIZE {
> self.send_single_command(bar, command)
> } else {
> // Split and send the parts
> ...
> }
>
> would read better IMHO. You can have a
> `SplitCommand::command_needs_splitting` method if you want to avoid
> comparing against the const in `send_command`, but honestly I think this
> is self-documenting already - you split the command because it is larger
> than the maximum supported size of the queue.
>
> It also would have the benefit of simplifying `SplitState` and
> `SplitCommand` since they wouldn't have to handle the non-split case at
> all. Actually you could just have a method that consumes the command and
> returns a tuple with the `SplitCommand` wrapping it, and its
> continuation records. That way I suspect you also remove the need to
> pass `command` twice.
Mmm or maybe it's not that simple. I'll experiment on the rebased v3
once it it sent, please ignore this comment for now.
