On Wed, Jan 29, 2025 at 08:33:47AM +0100, Stefano Brivio wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 12:03:30 +1100
> David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 07:48:49AM +0100, Stefano Brivio wrote:
> > > On Tue, 28 Jan 2025 11:59:28 +1100
> > > David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au> wrote:
> > >   
> > > > On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 12:15:30AM +0100, Stefano Brivio wrote:  
> > > > > These are symmetric to write_remainder() and write_all_buf() and
> > > > > almost a copy and paste of them, with the most notable differences
> > > > > being reversed reads/writes and a couple of better-safe-than-sorry
> > > > > asserts to keep Coverity happy.    
> > > > 
> > > > So, there's one thing that needs to be not quite symmetric for the
> > > > read() version: we need to handle EOF.  At present, I believe these
> > > > will enter an infinite loop on EOF, which is not a graceful failure
> > > > mode.  
> > > 
> > > It doesn't happen in our current usage where we close the socket once
> > > we're done,  
> > 
> > I don't see how what we do with the socket is relevant.  Couldn't we
> > hit this case if qemu unexpectedly closed the socket or died?
> 
> Yes, sure. I just mentioned that it's not the intended usage, and
> rather an error case we need to handle.

Oh, sure, no argument there.

-- 
David Gibson (he or they)	| I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au	| minimalist, thank you, not the other way
				| around.
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson