On Fri, Oct 05, 2001 at 03:10:55PM -0400, Cliff Woolley wrote: > On 5 Oct 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > ap_brigade_partition does a blocking read. > > Correct. > > > Ryan, Greg, and others can figure out if ap_brigade_partition should > > be tweaked to handle AP_NONBLOCK_READ natively. I'm of a mixed mind, > > but this addresses the short term need. > > No, it shouldn't. -1. > > If you ask to partition the brigade at a certain byte offset and > apr_brigade_partition() encounters a bucket on which it must block, it > should do so. Callers of apr_brigade_partition() don't want to have to > handle nonblocking returns... all they want is the brigade split at that > offset. If it's nonblocking, it returns and is basically saying "Well, I > _might_ be able to partition at that offset, but I'm not sure right now. > Ask me again later." All the caller's going to be able to do (because it > really DID want a partition at that offset) is call back into > apr_brigade_partition in a tight loop until the thing does what it wanted. > Much much better to just have apr_brigade_partition block so that the > result is sensible. Fewer CPU cycles wasted, fewer cases that the caller > has to handle. If you want nonblocking, do it yourself.
Yup, that's what I was thinking. =) Now, what about the case that we want to do a blocking read but we don't really know how much to read? I think it is analogous to the non-blocking case (what this commit does), but it just calls bucket_read with a timeout value. Whatever it returns should be good enough. We can't rely on apr_brigade_partition since it must block. So, I'm thinking a new ap_get_brigade mode called AP_BLOCKING_PARTIAL_MODE might do the trick. It tells the core input filter that it is okay to return less than that number of bytes. It issues *one* blocking read and returns at most *readbytes (or len returning from bucket_read if smaller) back in the brigade. I think this would make mod_ssl much happier. =) Has anyone thought of this before? Was it shot down? Is it a good idea? > (Besides, Ryan already tried this once and realized that it was bad and > reverted his change.) Yeah, I feel like I'm treading water here. =) -- justin
