Re: Git 2.54.0-rc1, subtests of t5310, t5326, t5327

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Apr 8, 2026, 18:12 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqq4illz5g9.fsf@gitster.g>
In-Reply-To: <20260408173949.GB2850002@coredump.intra.peff.net>

Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:

Show 13 quoted lines

> On Wed, Apr 08, 2026 at 12:25:47PM -0400, rsbecker@nexbridge.com wrote:
>
>> This is also impacting t5608 and t7700. Anywhere where writev() is
>> used, seemingly. We went through MAX_IO_SIZE issues years ago, instead
>> of using ssize_t as a basis of how big communication is. I think
>> writev() is not valid. It worked on Lunix, but had issues elsewhere.
>> This broke the compat layer.
>
> I wondered briefly if the problem could be that we're violating
> MAX_IO_SIZE here, as our use of writev() does not respect it at all. But
> the only spot that uses it is feeding pkt-line packets, which max out at
> 64k. So unless your MAX_IO_SIZE is smaller than that, I doubt that is
> the problem.

Good point. The original did not use write(2) directly but used write_or_die(), that is write_in_full(), that loops over xwrite(), so it would have worked even with a lot lower MAX_IO_SIZE limit.

According to man7.org, writev() is allowed to transfer fewer bytes than requested, so our use of writev() may have to be a bit more careful, though.