"Jeff Hostetler via GitGitGadget" [off-list ref] writes:
Here is V4 of my "Simple IPC" series. It addresses Gábor's comment WRT
shutting down the server to make unit tests more predictable on CI servers.
(https://lore.kernel.org/git/20210213093052.GJ1015009@szeder.dev)
Jeff
cc: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason avarab@gmail.com cc: Jeff Hostetler
git@jeffhostetler.com cc: Jeff King peff@peff.net cc: Chris Torek
chris.torek@gmail.com
It seems that the discussions around the topic has mostly done
during the v2 review, and has quieted down since then.
Let's merge it down to 'next'?
On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 11:39:39AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
"Jeff Hostetler via GitGitGadget" [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
Here is V4 of my "Simple IPC" series. It addresses Gábor's comment WRT
shutting down the server to make unit tests more predictable on CI servers.
(https://lore.kernel.org/git/20210213093052.GJ1015009@szeder.dev)
Jeff
cc: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason avarab@gmail.com cc: Jeff Hostetler
git@jeffhostetler.com cc: Jeff King peff@peff.net cc: Chris Torek
chris.torek@gmail.com
It seems that the discussions around the topic has mostly done
during the v2 review, and has quieted down since then.
Let's merge it down to 'next'?
Sorry, I hadn't gotten around to looking at the latest version. I left
another round of comments. Some of them are arguably bikeshedding, but
there's at least one I think we'd want to address (the big stack buffer
in patch 1).
I also haven't carefully looked at the simple-ipc design at all; my
focus has just been on the details of socket and pktline code being
touched. Since there are no simple-ipc users yet, and since it's
internal and would be easy to change later, I'm mostly content for Jeff
to proceed as he sees fit and iterate on it as necessary.
-Peff
On 2/26/21 2:59 AM, Jeff King wrote:
On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 11:39:39AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
quoted
"Jeff Hostetler via GitGitGadget" [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
Here is V4 of my "Simple IPC" series. It addresses Gábor's comment WRT
shutting down the server to make unit tests more predictable on CI servers.
(https://lore.kernel.org/git/20210213093052.GJ1015009@szeder.dev)
Jeff
cc: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason avarab@gmail.com cc: Jeff Hostetler
git@jeffhostetler.com cc: Jeff King peff@peff.net cc: Chris Torek
chris.torek@gmail.com
It seems that the discussions around the topic has mostly done
during the v2 review, and has quieted down since then.
Let's merge it down to 'next'?
Sorry, I hadn't gotten around to looking at the latest version. I left
another round of comments. Some of them are arguably bikeshedding, but
there's at least one I think we'd want to address (the big stack buffer
in patch 1).
I also haven't carefully looked at the simple-ipc design at all; my
focus has just been on the details of socket and pktline code being
touched. Since there are no simple-ipc users yet, and since it's
internal and would be easy to change later, I'm mostly content for Jeff
to proceed as he sees fit and iterate on it as necessary.
-Peff
We can wait until next week on moving this 'next' if you want.
I'll attend to the buffer alloc in patch 1. I'm still reading the
other comments and will see where that takes me.
I'm about ready to push an RFC for my fsmonitor--daemon series that
sits on top of this simple-ipc series, so you can see an actual use
case if that would help understand (my madness).
Thanks
Jeff
On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 03:18:26PM -0500, Jeff Hostetler wrote:
quoted
Sorry, I hadn't gotten around to looking at the latest version. I left
another round of comments. Some of them are arguably bikeshedding, but
there's at least one I think we'd want to address (the big stack buffer
in patch 1).
I also haven't carefully looked at the simple-ipc design at all; my
focus has just been on the details of socket and pktline code being
touched. Since there are no simple-ipc users yet, and since it's
internal and would be easy to change later, I'm mostly content for Jeff
to proceed as he sees fit and iterate on it as necessary.
We can wait until next week on moving this 'next' if you want.
I'll attend to the buffer alloc in patch 1. I'm still reading the
other comments and will see where that takes me.
I could have been a bit more clear here: modulo any response you have to
my latest round of comments, I'm mostly happy to let this proceed to
next. So I was thinking you'd have one more re-roll dealing with the
patch 1 problems plus anything else you think worth addressing from my
batch of comments, and then that result would probably be ready for
'next'.
I'm about ready to push an RFC for my fsmonitor--daemon series that
sits on top of this simple-ipc series, so you can see an actual use
case if that would help understand (my madness).
I may have dug my own grave here. ;) I'm actually not incredibly
interested in the overall topic. So I wasn't saying so much "I'll
reserve judgement on simple-ipc until I see callers" so much as "I
expect you'll find any shortcomings in its design yourself as you build
on top of it".
And by "not interested" I don't mean that I think the topic is without
value. Far from it; I think this is an important area to be working in.
But it's complex and time-consuming to review. So I was hoping somebody
with more expertise and interest in the problem space would do that part
of the review, and I could continue to focus on other stuff. That may be
wishful thinking, though. :)
-Peff