On Sat, Jul 16, 2016 at 12:56 AM, Jeff King <p...@peff.net> wrote:
>> > + if (use_keepalive == KEEPALIVE_AFTER_NUL &&
>> > !keepalive_active) {
>> > + const char *p = memchr(data, '\0', sz);
>> > + if (p) {
>> > + /*
>> > + * The NUL tells us to start sending
>> > keepalives. Make
>> > + * sure we send any other data we read
>> > along
>> > + * with it.
>> > + */
>> > + keepalive_active = 1;
>> > + send_sideband(1, 2, data, p - data,
>> > use_sideband);
>> > + send_sideband(1, 2, p + 1, sz - (p - data
>> > + 1), use_sideband);
>> > + continue;
>>
>> Oh, I see why the turn_on_keepalive_on_NUL doesn't work as well as I thought.
>> I wonder if we can use a better read function, that would stop reading at a
>> NUL,
>> and return early instead?
>
> How would you do that, if not by read()ing a byte at a time (which is
> inefficient)? Otherwise you have to deal with the leftovers (after the
> NUL) in your buffer. It's one of the reasons I went with a single-byte
> signal, because otherwise it gets rather complicated to do robustly.
I do not question the concept of a single NUL byte, but rather the
implementation,
i.e. if we had an xread_until_nul you would not need to have a double
send_sideband
here?
>
> -Peff
--
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
