This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

Author giampaolo.rodola
Recipients PEAR, alexeicolin, giampaolo.rodola, gregory.p.smith, p.conesa.mingo
Date 2021-05-10.20:06:07
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <1620677167.1.0.316421090823.issue43743@roundup.psfhosted.org>
In-reply-to
Content
> The question seems to be is if it should be okay to _GiveUpOnFastCopy after a partial (incomplete) copy has already occurred via sendfile.

I think it should not. For posterity: my rationale for introducing _USE_CP_SENDFILE was to allow monkey patching for corner cases such as this one (see also bpo-36610 / GH-13675), but expose it as a private name because I expected them to be rare and likely up to a broken underlying implementation, as it appears this is the case. FWIW, I deem _USE_CP_SENDFILE usage in production code as legitimate, and as such it should stay private but never be removed.
History
Date User Action Args
2021-05-10 20:06:07giampaolo.rodolasetrecipients: + giampaolo.rodola, gregory.p.smith, alexeicolin, p.conesa.mingo, PEAR
2021-05-10 20:06:07giampaolo.rodolasetmessageid: <1620677167.1.0.316421090823.issue43743@roundup.psfhosted.org>
2021-05-10 20:06:07giampaolo.rodolalinkissue43743 messages
2021-05-10 20:06:07giampaolo.rodolacreate