Message70171
| Author |
pitrou |
| Recipients |
alexandre.vassalotti, gregory.p.smith, loewis, pitrou |
| Date |
2008年07月23日.09:19:54 |
| SpamBayes Score |
0.0005660126 |
| Marked as misclassified |
No |
| Message-id |
<1216804783.4886f7af1cba1@imp.free.fr> |
| In-reply-to |
<1216782150.94.0.927313067142.issue2523@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| Content |
> When I revised the patch I had a weak understanding of nonblocking I/O.
> I thought the "exponential" reads were for nonblocking I/O, but I see
> now that is non-sense.
Fine, so it will make the patch simpler.
As for non-blocking IO, I think we should raise the general issue on
python-3000. There is no real support for it right now, by which I mean (1) no
easy and portable way of enable non-blocking IO on a file object and (2) no test
cases of non-blocking IO in real-world conditions (rather than with mock
objects). This shouldn't stop us from fixing the present bug though.
> I am not sure, but I think Martin is also right about the second loop.
> The max() call should be changed back to "max(self.buffer_size, n))",
> like in the 2nd patch.
Ok. Could you produce an updated patch? :) |
|