Review Request 17618: Added io::write (in C++11).

[Benjamin Hindman <be...@berkeley.edu>]

-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/17618/
-----------------------------------------------------------

Review request for mesos and Ben Mahler.


Repository: mesos-git


Description
-------

See summary (C++03 refactor in https://reviews.apache.org/r/17619).


Diffs
-----

  3rdparty/libprocess/include/process/io.hpp 8cf3244e55da95654cea34471ee1eea5e19c872e 
  3rdparty/libprocess/src/process.cpp 1083a35a0fef48d5f790ec49305a56fd7ef451d5 
  3rdparty/libprocess/src/tests/io_tests.cpp ee5b0b4d22a4bfcac7140f87924964b8dfb50ac6 

Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/17618/diff/


Testing
-------

make check


Thanks,

Benjamin Hindman

Re: Review Request 17618: Added io::write (in C++11).

[Ben Mahler <be...@gmail.com>]

-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/17618/#review33363
-----------------------------------------------------------

Ship it!



3rdparty/libprocess/include/process/io.hpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/17618/#comment62804>

    "were written"



3rdparty/libprocess/src/process.cpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/17618/#comment62812>

    Should we check for size == 0? I'm mostly concerned about the following:
    
    "If nbyte is zero and the file is not a regular file, the results are unspecified."



3rdparty/libprocess/src/process.cpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/17618/#comment62808>

    I don't quite understand this comment, it looks like it is impossible for the io::poll future to get discarded altogether..



3rdparty/libprocess/src/process.cpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/17618/#comment62809>

    Would a 'return' here read better than having the giant else block?



3rdparty/libprocess/src/process.cpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/17618/#comment62810>

    Looks like you should be preserving errno above this block, seems that we should not assume signals::unblock does not affect errno.



3rdparty/libprocess/src/process.cpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/17618/#comment62811>

    onAny on the next line? (This line is 81 characters too)



3rdparty/libprocess/src/process.cpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/17618/#comment62805>

    The avoiding bit reads a bit strange, maybe s/if needed/only if needed/ ?



3rdparty/libprocess/src/process.cpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/17618/#comment62806>

    We use 4.15 now, is this comment still relevant for read?
    
    I wrote this comment for write, so I'm not sure if it even applies for writes.



3rdparty/libprocess/src/tests/io_tests.cpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/17618/#comment62813>

    Not concerned about what you're reading back?


- Ben Mahler


On Jan. 31, 2014, 10:02 p.m., Benjamin Hindman wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/17618/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Jan. 31, 2014, 10:02 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos and Ben Mahler.
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos-git
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> See summary (C++03 refactor in https://reviews.apache.org/r/17619).
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   3rdparty/libprocess/include/process/io.hpp 8cf3244e55da95654cea34471ee1eea5e19c872e 
>   3rdparty/libprocess/src/process.cpp 1083a35a0fef48d5f790ec49305a56fd7ef451d5 
>   3rdparty/libprocess/src/tests/io_tests.cpp ee5b0b4d22a4bfcac7140f87924964b8dfb50ac6 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/17618/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> make check
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Benjamin Hindman
> 
>