Re: Git 2.54.0-rc1, subtests of t5310, t5326, t5327
- From
Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im>
- Date
- Apr 10, 2026, 04:34 UTC
- Message-ID
- <adh92BCD47PlK9BM@pks.im>
- In-Reply-To
- <20260409225806.GA3133902@coredump.intra.peff.net>
On Thu, Apr 09, 2026 at 06:58:06PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
Show 25 quoted lines
> On Thu, Apr 09, 2026 at 06:40:00PM -0400, rsbecker@nexbridge.com wrote: > > > >> 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.
Yup, exactly. I don't have any intent to change the above snippet in our code base.
Patrick