Implement simple record boundary tracking in sbuf(9)
ClosedPublic
Actions

Authored by lstewart on Nov 16 2016, 8:59 AM.

Details

Reviewers

imp
cem

Group Reviewers

manpages

Commits

rS322614: Implement simple record boundary tracking in sbuf(9) to avoid record splitting

Summary

Implement simple record boundary tracking in sbuf(9) for use with drain operations to avoid record splitting.

Diff Detail

Repository

rS FreeBSD src repository - subversion

Lint

Lint Not Applicable

Unit

Tests Not Applicable

Event Timeline

lstewart updated this revision to Diff 22248.Nov 16 2016, 8:59 AM

lstewart retitled this revision from to Implement simple record boundary tracking in sbuf(9).

lstewart updated this object.

lstewart edited the test plan for this revision. (Show Details)

lstewart added a reviewer: • ian.

lstewart set the repository for this revision to rS FreeBSD src repository - subversion.

Herald added a reviewer: manpages. · View Herald TranscriptNov 16 2016, 8:59 AM

Herald added a subscriber: imp. · View Herald Transcript

lstewart updated this object.Nov 16 2016, 9:25 AM

lstewart edited edge metadata.

This looks good to me, but I'd get another set of eyes to approve as well before the commit.

This revision is now accepted and ready to land.Nov 16 2016, 3:16 PM

Looks fine, but I'd like to see a diff with context first. Can you upload a -U9999 diff?

wblock added a subscriber: wblock.Nov 18 2016, 5:12 PM

wblock added inline comments.

share/man/man9/sbuf.9
189 ↗	(On Diff #22248)	Passive->active: s/will be set/is set/

Rebase patch against current head and address review feedback.

This revision now requires review to proceed.Aug 8 2017, 12:59 AM

lstewart marked an inline comment as done.Aug 8 2017, 1:00 AM

lstewart added a reviewer: cem.Aug 15 2017, 5:15 AM

Looks fine. I think it would be good to note in the commit message that this is only for top-level sections and does not nest. It's obvious when you think about it, but, I like clarity.

This revision is now accepted and ready to land.Aug 16 2017, 9:38 PM

In D8536#249937, @cem wrote:

Looks fine. I think it would be good to note in the commit message that this is only for top-level sections and does not nest. It's obvious when you think about it, but, I like clarity.

Thanks very much for the feedback and review Conrad (and apologies for the long hiatus in circling back to wrap this up). Will include details in commit log as you suggest. To clarify, is the man page text sufficiently clear?

Yes, I think the man page additions are great.

Closed by commit rS322614: Implement simple record boundary tracking in sbuf(9) to avoid record splitting (authored by lstewart). · Explain WhyAug 17 2017, 7:20 AM

This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.