[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2] tools/libxc: Implement writev_exact() in the same style as write_exact()
On 07/07/14 11:18, Andrew Cooper wrote: > This implementation of writev_exact() will cope with an iovcnt greater than > IOV_MAX because glibc will actually let this work anyway, and it is very > useful not to have to work about this in the caller of writev_exact(). The > caller is still required to ensure that the sum of iov_len's doesn't overflow > a ssize_t. > > Promote the MAX() and MIN() macro definitions from xg_save_restore.h to > xc_private.h [...] > --- a/tools/libxc/xc_private.c > +++ b/tools/libxc/xc_private.c > @@ -854,6 +854,37 @@ int write_exact(int fd, const void *data, size_t size) > return 0; > } > > +int writev_exact(int fd, const struct iovec *iov, int iovcnt) > +{ [...] > + /* writev() guarentees atomicity of individual iov[] elements. > Sanity > + * check that the returned len did lie on an iov[] element boundary. > */ > + assert(len == 0); There's nothing in the writev(2) man page that says this. I think you need to handle partial writes of an entry. > --- a/tools/libxc/xc_private.h > +++ b/tools/libxc/xc_private.h [...] > +#ifndef MAX > +#define MAX(_a, _b) ((_a) >= (_b) ? (_a) : (_b)) > +#endif > +#ifndef MIN > +#define MIN(_a, _b) ((_a) <= (_b) ? (_a) : (_b)) > +#endif Do we really want to use these unsafe macros in more places? David _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |