Re: Rewriting the FIFO code

[Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin at cygwin dot com>]

On Mar 23 15:23, Ken Brown wrote:
> On 3/23/2019 6:23 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > On Mar 22 19:27, Ken Brown wrote:
> >> On 2/28/2019 5:23 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >>> For consistency it would be nice, but no, you don't have to use
> >>> NT function.  PIPE_NOWAIT is also available via Win32 API.
> >>
> >> I've finally finished a first pass at the FIFO code.  I ended up
> >> finding it more convenient to use the NT API and to initially create
> >> pipes in blocking mode, so that I could easily wait for a client to
> >> connect.  After there's a connection, I set the pipes non-blocking.
> > 
> > Sure, if that helps.
> > 
> >> I've tested the code by running Kerrisk's server/client programs cited
> >> in https://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2015-03/msg00047.html.  I've also run
> >> the test case that I posted in
> >> http://www.cygwin.org/ml/cygwin/2015-12/msg00311.html.
> >>
> >> There's still a lot more testing that needs to be done, and I haven't
> >> thought at all about the duplexer case yet, but I think I've done
> >> enough that a review would be helpful when you get the time.  I'll
> >> send the patches to cygwin-patches shortly.
> > 
> > Seen them, thank you.  Not sure how much time I have over the weekend,
> > but a first scan of your patch looks good.
> > 
> >> Once we finish the review/revise cycle, it might make sense to commit
> >> the patches to a topic/fifo branch for further work.  I don't think
> >> it's ready for master yet.
> > 
> > Sounds like a plan!
> > 
> > Here's a question: Even if you think this isn't ready for prime time,
> > how much of the *old* FIFO implementation does your new code cover?
> > 90%?  100%?  If the code isn't quite finished from your POV, but it
> > already covers all scenarios the old code (barely) worked, what
> > speaks against making this a 3.1?
> 
> I'm not worried about coverage; the only thing missing that the old
> code covered is the duplex case, which probably won't be difficult.
> 
> My main concern is testing.  I haven't yet tested the select or fork
> code.  But if that works OK, then maybe this will be ready for 3.1.

I have no specific plans for 3.1 so far, with 3.0 already covering more
stuff than I originally anticipated.  We can easily define 3.1 as the
new FIFO release and release it in our own time.


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen
Cygwin Maintainer

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature