If there are no objections I will commit this shortly. Amos
On 16/03/2014 1:08 a.m., Amos Jeffries wrote: > On 9/03/2014 7:34 p.m., Alex Rousskov wrote: >> On 03/08/2014 04:13 AM, Amos Jeffries wrote: >>> Prepare the way to efficiently parse client requests using SBuf based >>> parser-ng. >>> > <snip> >> >> Please redesign to avoid these problems. Please let me know if you need >> help with that -- I have a couple of ideas how this can be done, but I >> suspect yours are going to be better since you have spent a lot more >> time with this code. >> > > Good points. > > Attached patch extends the earlier one so IoCallback stores a > raw-pointer to the ConnStateData::In::buf. > > This is now specifically to the SBuf member object rather than its > MemBlob or char* backing stores. So only the short (blocking) > FD_READ_METHOD() call needs to provide any synchronous guarantees. > We particularly need a raw-pointer to the ConnStateData member to > prevent the same possible read/consume collisions causing problems when > it comes to merging the two separate SBuf later (by keeping only one SBuf). > > >> >>> - comm_read(clientConnection, in.addressToReadInto(), >>> getAvailableBufferLength(), reader); >>> + comm_read(clientConnection, in.buf.rawSpace(in.buf.spaceSize()), >>> in.buf.spaceSize()-1, reader); >> >> If this code survives, please allocate the buffer outside the comm_read >> call. There was already an ugly dependency on the right parameter >> evaluation order, and your changes make it look even worse. >> > > It is moved inside the deep read operations now, just before > FD_READ_METHOD is used. If I am understanding what you meant then that > should fix it properly. > > Amos >
