[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH] Bindings for ‘sendfile’
From: |
Thien-Thi Nguyen |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH] Bindings for ‘sendfile’ |
Date: |
Tue, 09 Apr 2013 10:33:25 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.2 (gnu/linux) |
() address@hidden (Ludovic Courtès)
() Sun, 07 Apr 2013 21:53:26 +0200
+In other cases, the libc function may send fewer bytes than
address@hidden instance because @var{out} is a slow or limited
+device, such as a pipe. When that happens, Guile's @code{sendfile}
+automatically retries until exactly @var{count} bytes were sent or an
+error occurs.
A short write is an opportunity for the caller to Do Something Else
(i.e., go asynchronous). I think that is more useful than internalizing
the looping. To accomodate both usage patterns, you could leave the
low-level proc as-is (as-was :-D) and provide another proc that loops.
--
Thien-Thi Nguyen
GPG key: 4C807502
pgpQuHJZnXwHS.pgp
Description: PGP signature
- Re: [PATCH] Bindings for ‘sendfile’, Ludovic Courtès, 2013/04/07
- Re: [PATCH] Bindings for ‘sendfile’,
Thien-Thi Nguyen <=
- Re: [PATCH] Bindings for ‘sendfile’, Ludovic Courtès, 2013/04/09
- Re: [PATCH] Bindings for ‘sendfile’, Thien-Thi Nguyen, 2013/04/09
- Re: [PATCH] Bindings for ‘sendfile’, Mark H Weaver, 2013/04/10
- Re: [PATCH] Bindings for ‘sendfile’, Thien-Thi Nguyen, 2013/04/14
- Re: [PATCH] Bindings for ‘sendfile’, Ludovic Courtès, 2013/04/16
- Re: [PATCH] Bindings for ‘sendfile’, Thien-Thi Nguyen, 2013/04/16
- Re: [PATCH] Bindings for ‘sendfile’, Ludovic Courtès, 2013/04/17
- Re: [PATCH] Bindings for ‘sendfile’, Thien-Thi Nguyen, 2013/04/17
- Re: [PATCH] Bindings for ‘sendfile’, Ludovic Courtès, 2013/04/17
- Re: [PATCH] Bindings for ‘sendfile’, Thien-Thi Nguyen, 2013/04/18