From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2026 22:31:46 GMT
Subject: Re: Re* 2.54.0-rc1 NO_WRITEV=Nope does not work
Message-ID: <xmqqik9zrcj1.fsf@gitster.g>
In-Reply-To: <20260409222131.GA3130242@coredump.intra.peff.net>

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.

I am preparing another set of integration to be pushed out, queueing
the reverts in 'seen'.