Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2015 19:12:00 -0500 From: Phil Shafer <phil@juniper.net> To: "Simon J. Gerraty" <sjg@juniper.net> Cc: Alfred Perlstein <alfred@freebsd.org>, John-Mark Gurney <jmg@funkthat.com>, Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org>, Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net>, "arch@freebsd.org" <arch@freebsd.org>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@freebsd.org>, freebsd-arch <freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>, Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Libxo bugs and fixes. Message-ID: <201501070012.t070C0mO005107@idle.juniper.net> In-Reply-To: <2472.1420571203@chaos>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"Simon J. Gerraty" writes: >Calling flush for every xo_* call would seem like a bad idea no? Yup, so callers would need to set the XOF_FLUSH flag by hand if they want this odd behavior. >The app/caller is the only one to know when a suitable flush point has >been reached (if necessary). > >It should suffice if xo_flush() does what the name implies. Cool. Then I'm done ;^) >If someone is using something other than stdio for a handle, they just >need to tell libxo a function to call in response to xo_flush ? Exactly. Or just flush it themselves in their write function, if they needed an immediate flushing model. >Does it need to be more complicated than that? Nope. Thanks, Phil
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201501070012.t070C0mO005107>