Re: Re* 2.54.0-rc1 NO_WRITEV=Nope does not work
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- Apr 9, 2026, 22:31 UTC
- Message-ID
- <xmqqik9zrcj1.fsf@gitster.g>
- In-Reply-To
- <20260409222131.GA3130242@coredump.intra.peff.net>
Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
Show 29 quoted lines
> 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.
I am preparing another set of integration to be pushed out, queueing the reverts in 'seen'.