() l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès)
() Wed, 17 Apr 2013 18:27:04 +0200
So that was over a PF_INET/SOCK_STREAM socket, right?
Yes. FWIW, ttn-do sizzweb can also operate over PF_UNIX/SOCK_STREAM
and i recall doing some testing (w/ similar results) there.
Would it occur systematically, or
Thien-Thi Nguyen t...@gnuvola.org skribis:
Anyway, i hope Guile grows a ‘sendfile-some’ (or whatever) so that i can
adapt my programs to use it instead of the ttn-do ‘sendfile’:
I’m open to the idea. To get a better understanding, do you have
examples of real applications where it makes a
() l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès)
() Wed, 17 Apr 2013 14:52:40 +0200
concrete cases of recurring short writes?
The original application was ttn-do serve-debiso, which configures
ttn-do sizzweb to serve debian ISOs (or rather, the various component
.deb files and metadata that apt-get requests
Thien-Thi Nguyen t...@gnuvola.org skribis:
The original application was ttn-do serve-debiso, which configures
ttn-do sizzweb to serve debian ISOs (or rather, the various component
.deb files and metadata that apt-get requests from the loopback-mounted
ISO) over the home network.
Thien-Thi Nguyen t...@gnuvola.org skribis:
My reading of sendfile(2) is that it does its best to send as much as
possible, but does not guarantee sending everything. What it does
succeed in sending, it reports to the caller. The caller loops as
desired, after evaluating (in some
() l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès)
() Tue, 16 Apr 2013 18:31:00 +0200
Thien-Thi Nguyen t...@gnuvola.org skribis:
My reading of sendfile(2) is that it does its best to send as much
as possible, but does not guarantee sending everything. What it
does succeed in sending, it reports
() Mark H Weaver m...@netris.org
() Wed, 10 Apr 2013 07:26:32 -0400
Regarding the proposed low-level interface (which I will call
'sendfile-some' for now), I have a question: can it actually be used
to write a robust asynchronous server?
I can't imagine why not, although i certainly
() l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès)
() Wed, 10 Apr 2013 22:56:38 +0200
Well, I sympathize with the idea of sticking to the underlying
syscall semantics; yet, for my own uses of ‘sendfile’, I can only
think of cases all I want is to send the file.
I understand; it's easy to project one's
Thien-Thi Nguyen t...@gnuvola.org writes:
Another way to think about it is: A ‘sendfile/all’ can be implemented in
terms of a ‘sendfile/non-looping’ but not the other way around.
So overall, i think hiding partial i/o is a mistake. This is just one
instance of that, it seems (‘write’ and
Thien-Thi Nguyen t...@gnuvola.org skribis:
So overall, i think hiding partial i/o is a mistake.
Well, I sympathize with the idea of sticking to the underlying syscall
semantics; yet, for my own uses of ‘sendfile’, I can only think of cases
all I want is to send the file.
(Besides, it seems to
() l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès)
() Sun, 07 Apr 2013 21:53:26 +0200
+In other cases, the libc function may send fewer bytes than
+@var{count}---for instance because @var{out} is a slow or limited
+device, such as a pipe. When that happens, Guile's @code{sendfile}
+automatically
Hi!
Thien-Thi Nguyen t...@gnuvola.org skribis:
() l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès)
() Sun, 07 Apr 2013 21:53:26 +0200
+In other cases, the libc function may send fewer bytes than
+@var{count}---for instance because @var{out} is a slow or limited
+device, such as a pipe. When that
() l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès)
() Tue, 09 Apr 2013 17:02:03 +0200
After a long discussion on IRC was Mark, I was mostly convinced that
leaving that to users is questionable.
User behavior in the wild is always questionable. :-D
First, because one obviously expects the procedure to
There were sporadic failures of the sendfile/pipe tests on Hydra. I
managed to reproduce them and noticed that sometimes sendfile(2) would
return 64KiB, which is much less than what we asked for.
Although the man page doesn’t mention it, this can happen when writing
to a slow or limited device,
I just pushed a new version, which reinstates the return value, and
appropriately detects EOF condition on the input (by just returning 0).
Comments welcome!
Ludo’.
Mark H Weaver m...@netris.org skribis:
The sendfile commit (fbac7c6113056bc6ee85996b10bdc08325c742a5) has
caused the following build failures on Hydra.
Thanks for the notification.
On GNU/Linux: (both i686-linux and x86_64-linux without threads)
http://hydra.nixos.org/build/4463700/log/raw
Hi Ludovic,
The sendfile commit (fbac7c6113056bc6ee85996b10bdc08325c742a5) has
caused the following build failures on Hydra.
Thanks,
Mark
==
On GNU/Linux: (both i686-linux and x86_64-linux without threads)
l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
Mark H Weaver m...@netris.org skribis:
Since the code below will behave badly if 'c_count' does not fit in an
'ssize_t', we should validate here that it _does_ fit.
Oops, indeed. (Note that sendfile(2) and write(2) have that problem:
they take a
Hi Mark,
Mark H Weaver m...@netris.org skribis:
l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
I plan to commit the patch below, which adds bindings for ‘sendfile’.
Comments?
Looks great to me, modulo one comment below.
Thanks for the quick review!
I especially like the fact that although it
On Thu 21 Mar 2013 10:40, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
I plan to commit the patch below, which adds bindings for
‘sendfile’.
Should probably go in gnulib at some point, no? Looks good tho :)
--
http://wingolog.org/
On 03/21/13 11:15, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
Noah Lavine noah.b.lav...@gmail.com skribis:
I've thought for a while that if I had time (which I know I won't) I would
make a module called (linux) with bindings for non-POSIX Linux kernel
features. What do you think of this idea? If so, what do you
Andy Wingo wi...@pobox.com skribis:
On Thu 21 Mar 2013 10:40, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
I plan to commit the patch below, which adds bindings for
‘sendfile’.
Should probably go in gnulib at some point, no?
Yes, you’re right. I’ll see
Hello,
Yes, you're completely right - making it work on all platforms is much
better than what I had proposed. I'm glad you're doing this.
Thanks,
Noah
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 5:15 AM, Ludovic Courtès l...@gnu.org wrote:
Hi Noah,
Noah Lavine noah.b.lav...@gmail.com skribis:
I've thought
Hi,
sendfile looks very useful!
I've thought for a while that if I had time (which I know I won't) I would
make a module called (linux) with bindings for non-POSIX Linux kernel
features. What do you think of this idea? If so, what do you think of
putting sendfile there and expanding it with
On Wed, 2013-03-20 at 23:21 +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
Hi,
I plan to commit the patch below, which adds bindings for ‘sendfile’.
Comments?
As a server-develop fan, I definitely love it.
Besides, can we add more linux-specific features and add them into a
place like (ice-9 linux)?
Hi Ludovic,
l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
I plan to commit the patch below, which adds bindings for ‘sendfile’.
Comments?
Looks great to me, modulo one comment below.
I especially like the fact that although it can make use of the
non-standard Linux syscall, it works properly on all
Mark H Weaver m...@netris.org writes:
+for (result = 0, left = c_count; result c_count; )
If 'c_count's does not fit in a 'ssize_t', then this loop will go
forever and 'result' will wrap around to negative numbers and undefined
C behavior.
Having just consulted the relevant C standards,
27 matches
Mail list logo
