From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 16:44:19 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/10] strbuf: Add strbuf_read_noblock
Message-ID: <CAPc5daVY=t27wkX2x7DSfObwxZuv37VYxi1XD-RKiS1mv4=6KA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20150917163012.GB25837@sigill.intra.peff.net>

On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 9:30 AM, Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:
>
> So I think we would probably want to treat EAGAIN specially: return -1
> to signal to the caller but _don't_ truncate the strbuf.

Yeah, "don't truncate" is needed.

> Arguably we should actually return the number of bytes we _did_ read,
> but then caller cannot easily tell the difference between EOF and
> EAGAIN.

Why can't it check errno==EAGAIN/EWOULDBLOCK?