Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] pkt-line: add packet_writel() and packet_read_line_gently()

>> Would packet_write_lines make more sense ?
>>
>
> Just goes to prove that there are two hard things in computer science: cache invalidation, naming things, and off-by-one errors. :)  The feedback on V1 was:
>
> "I am hesitant to take a function that does not take any "list"
> type argument and yet calls itself "write_list".  IOW, I'd expect something like these
>
> 	write_list(int fd, const char **lines);
> 	write_list(int fd, struct string_list *lines);
>
> given that name, and not "varargs, each of which is a line".  I am tempted to suggest
>
> 	packet_writel(int fd, const char *line, ...);"
>
>>> +{
>>> +	va_list args;
>>> +	int err;
>>> +	va_start(args, line);
>>> +	for (;;) {
>>> +		if (!line)
>>> +			break;
>>> +		if (strlen(line) > LARGE_PACKET_DATA_MAX)
>>> +			return -1;
>>> +		err = packet_write_fmt_gently(fd, "%s\n", line);
>>> +		if (err)
>>> +			return err;
>>> +		line = va_arg(args, const char*);
>>> +	}
>>> +	va_end(args);
>>> +	return packet_flush_gently(fd);
>>> +}
>>> +
>> I don't think that this va_start() is needed, even if it works.
>>
>> int packet_write_line(int fd, const char *lines[])
>> |
>> 	const char *line = *lines;
>> 	int err;
>> 	while (line) {
>> 		if (strlen(line) > LARGE_PACKET_DATA_MAX)
>> 			return -1;
>> 		err = packet_write_fmt_gently(fd, "%s\n", line);
>> 		if (err)
>> 			return err;
>> 		lines++;
>> 		line = *lines;
>> 	}
>> 	return packet_flush_gently(fd);
>> ]
>>
>
> This is a helper function to simply the common pattern of writing out a variable number of lines followed by a flush.  The usage of the function as currently implemented is:
>
> packet_writel(fd, "line one", "line two", "line n");