Re: Re* 2.54.0-rc1 NO_WRITEV=Nope does not work

> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
> 
> > On Thu, Apr 09, 2026 at 02:53:28PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> >
> >> > Yuck. I think for 2.54 we either have to truly implement MAX_IO_SIZE
> >> > support, or we have to revert the use of writev() in send_sideband()
> >> > until we do.
> >> 
> >> Sigh again.
> >
> > Yeah, I feel the same way. :(
> >
> > I would be happy if somebody could prove me wrong, though.
> >
> >> $ git log -Swritev --oneline 8023abc632^..
> >> 89152af176 cmake: use writev(3p) wrapper as needed
> >> 26986f4cba sideband: use writev(3p) to send pktlines
> >> 1970fcef93 wrapper: introduce writev(3p) wrappers
> >> 3b9b2c2a29 compat/posix: introduce writev(3p) wrapper
> >> 
> >> Reverting them gave us the following patch relative to the tip of
> >> 'master'.
> >
> > If we are planning to improve the topic post-release (and I think that
> > is a good idea), then we can do a much smaller revert. If we just revert
> > 26986f4cba (sideband: use writev(3p) to send pktlines, 2026-03-13), then
> > nobody calls writev (neither the real one nor our fallback). The
> > wrappers are dead code until we bring it back, but it may make things
> > easier for fixing post-2.54.
> >
> > -Peff
> 
> Yes and no.  While excising know callers is certainly safer in the
> code space, I do not want to hear about some compilers complaining
> about dead code, etc.