On Thu, 23 Jun 2016, Lukas Fleischer wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jun 2016 at 00:47:39, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > On Wed, 22 Jun 2016, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > [...]
> > > if (*b) {
> > > xwrite(STDERR_FILENO, outbuf.buf, outbuf.len);
> > > /* Incomplete line, skip the next prefix. */
> > > strbuf_reset(&outbuf);
> > > }
> > > continue;
> > >
> > > You are probably missing a strbuf_addf() before the last xwrite().
> >
> > In fact, you could simply append the partial line to the strbuf and make
> > it the prefix for the next packet rather than writing a partial line.
> > You'd only have to write a partial line before leaving the function if
> > the strbuf is not empty at that point.
>
> True. And I like that solution.
>
> Thinking about your last sentence, do we care about printing an
> incomplete line at the end of the communication at all?
I'd think so. This is very unlikely to happen in practice, but that
might be useful to diagnose potential problems.
> If so, do we need to print such a line on every return path (i.e. on
> protocol and remote errors as well)? If we do, and if we want to
> implement partial line handling the way you suggested, we should
> probably print that final line from a common return path. And if we
> add such a path, we could reconsider using a non-static strbuf as
> well, since we could simply strbuf_release() the output buffer in that
> common code block. Opinions?
That makes sense to me.
Nicolas
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
