Joe Orton wrote:
On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 10:35:11AM -0700, Paul Querna wrote:
Jeff Trawick wrote:
On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 00:01:05 -0700, Paul Querna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
1) write_full() has the wrong semantics for apr_file_writev();
apr_file_writev() and apr_file_write() are not supposed to block
Than
On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 10:35:11AM -0700, Paul Querna wrote:
> Jeff Trawick wrote:
> >On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 00:01:05 -0700, Paul Querna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >1) write_full() has the wrong semantics for apr_file_writev();
> >apr_file_writev() and apr_file_write() are not supposed to block
>
> Thank
On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 02:17:31AM -, Paul Querna wrote:
> --- apr/apr/trunk/file_io/unix/fullrw.c (original)
> +++ apr/apr/trunk/file_io/unix/fullrw.c Sat Dec 4 18:17:30 2004
> @@ -60,3 +60,37 @@
>
> return status;
> }
> +
> +APR_DECLARE(apr_status_t) apr_file_writev_full(
Paul Querna wrote:
2) fix the code formatting
Can this please be more specific? I reviewed the style guide at
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/styleguide.html and I believe all of the
code I have modified here is within those guidelines.
I believe what he's referring to is the lack of spaces between
Jeff Trawick wrote:
On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 00:01:05 -0700, Paul Querna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jeff Trawick wrote:
> we're hosed here if apr_file_write() can only write part of the data
(tbytes is < vec[i].iov_len and rv is APR_SUCCESS); don't you also
need to bail if tbytes < vec[i].iov_len?
Comm
I'm looking into using apr for an existing application, so that I can
use its hash tables, pools, rings, atomic operations, etc. The concern I
have is that the application is already multi-threaded (using pthreads)
and I'm not ready to re-engineer the entire codebase... I need to start
small an
On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 00:01:05 -0700, Paul Querna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jeff Trawick wrote:
> > we're hosed here if apr_file_write() can only write part of the data
> > (tbytes is < vec[i].iov_len and rv is APR_SUCCESS); don't you also
> > need to bail if tbytes < vec[i].iov_len?
>
> Commit
On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 12:53:58PM +, Thom May wrote:
> Guys,
> any reason why apr_sha1_* are declared as void, and apr_md*_* are
> apr_status_t? Any objections (I have patch plus tests ready to go) for
> fixing this on HEAD?
You don't say which you propose to change, but either way it's an AP
Guys,
any reason why apr_sha1_* are declared as void, and apr_md*_* are
apr_status_t? Any objections (I have patch plus tests ready to go) for
fixing this on HEAD?
-T
Jeff Trawick wrote:
> we're hosed here if apr_file_write() can only write part of the data
(tbytes is < vec[i].iov_len and rv is APR_SUCCESS); don't you also
need to bail if tbytes < vec[i].iov_len?
Committed r109865 which uses apr_file_write_full() to hopefully write
the entire iovec.
According
On 4 Dec 2004 23:40:37 -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Author: pquerna
> Date: Sat Dec 4 15:40:37 2004
> New Revision: 109832
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?view=rev&rev=109832
> Log:
> * test/testfile.c: Add a test for apr_file_writev().
> * file_io/unix/readwrite.c
11 matches
Mail list logo