From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Apr 11 15:13:22 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [8.8.178.115]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DC5DA35 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 2013 15:13:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mrboco@gmail.com) Received: from mail-qa0-f60.google.com (mail-qa0-f60.google.com [209.85.216.60]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47A77DF for ; Thu, 11 Apr 2013 15:13:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qa0-f60.google.com with SMTP id i13so202705qae.15 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 2013 08:13:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.49.85.165 with SMTP id i5mr635223qez.28.1365693201486; Thu, 11 Apr 2013 08:13:21 -0700 (PDT) Path: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: fa.freebsd.stable Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 08:13:21 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=81.30.199.254; posting-account=sMcwMQoAAAAdu1V-A3R0KelfgYVS8M25 NNTP-Posting-Host: 81.30.199.254 References: User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-Google-Web-Client: true X-Google-IP: 81.30.199.254 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: Subject: Re: svn - but smaller? From: mrboco@gmail.com To: fa.freebsd.stable@googlegroups.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: John Mehr , freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, mrboco@gmail.com X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 15:13:22 -0000 > I'm sorry, but even ignoring all of your whitespace and style(9)=20 > differences, your patch appears to go well beyond correcting a typo,=20 > which I can't spot anyway, though I'm sure John will know what it is. >=20 > Care to explain a little more? Sure. Typo is "strlen(command - total_bytes_written)" instead of "strlen(co= mmand) - total_bytes_written". But then I've noticed that John have used non-blocking IO (useless in our c= ase) while not handling IO errors, that lead us to permanent cycling on EAG= AIN. So I've replaced John's code with the simpler one that blocks on write= () and removed fcntl(..., O_NONBLOCK). Then I've run a lot of tests again my own repository located on the same ma= chine and sometime svnup was locked permanently with send/recieve queues fi= lled up (remote fetching was OK). I've digged a bit in svn code and deceide= d that it would be helpful to use SO_KEEPALIVE and to set SNDBUF (at least)= to the COMMAND_BUFFER value. > Also, what advantage, in this particular case, is there in statically=20 > linking? Here it turns a 21.5K i386 binary into one of 575K. If this=20 > makes it into base, as I hope it may, that seems a little excessive? There is no advantage. I've compiled both binaries for myself to be able to= "svnup" hundreds of mahines w/o wondering about exact release =3D)