Greetings,
* Robbie Harwood (rharw...@redhat.com) wrote:
> Stephen Frost writes:
> > * Robbie Harwood (rharw...@redhat.com) wrote:
> >> Stephen Frost writes:
> >>
> >> I wanted to note a couple things about this approach. It now uses
> >> one more buffer than before (in contrast to the
Stephen Frost writes:
> * Robbie Harwood (rharw...@redhat.com) wrote:
>> Stephen Frost writes:
>>
>> I wanted to note a couple things about this approach. It now uses
>> one more buffer than before (in contrast to the previous approach,
>> which reused a buffer for received data that was
Greetings,
* Robbie Harwood (rharw...@redhat.com) wrote:
> Stephen Frost writes:
>
> > One of the things that I really didn't care for in this patch was the
> > use of the string buffers, without any real checks (except for "oh,
> > you tried to allocated over 1G"...) to make sure that the
