Re: Git 2.54.0-rc1, subtests of t5310, t5326, t5327
- From
Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
- Date
- Apr 9, 2026, 22:58 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20260409225806.GA3133902@coredump.intra.peff.net>
- In-Reply-To
- <029701dcc871$d055dd20$71019760$@nexbridge.com>
On Thu, Apr 09, 2026 at 06:40:00PM -0400, rsbecker@nexbridge.com wrote:
Show 19 quoted lines
> >> Please do not make the change in git-compat-util. This will break xwrite(). > >> We already have MAX_IO_SIZE working and verified from years ago. > >> Changing that will remove our platform from being supportable. > > > >I think that was just there to demonstrate that the patch works regardless of the > >size, and would not be included in the final. > >Building with: > > > > make CFLAGS=-DMAX_IO_SIZE=128 > > > >is probably a nicer way of doing that, though. ;) > > We had that set properly in git-compat-util.h for years. MAX_IO_SIZE should be set to SSIZE_MAX if SSIZE_MAX is defined. > #ifndef MAX_IO_SIZE > # define MAX_IO_SIZE_DEFAULT (8*1024*1024) > # if defined(SSIZE_MAX) && (SSIZE_MAX < MAX_IO_SIZE_DEFAULT) > # define MAX_IO_SIZE SSIZE_MAX > # else > # define MAX_IO_SIZE MAX_IO_SIZE_DEFAULT
Right. We would retain that. I think the point was that Patrick was dropping MAX_IO_SIZE artificially on his Linux system to exercise the new code.
-Peff