Message393429
> 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. |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2021-05-10 20:06:07 | giampaolo.rodola | set | recipients:
+ giampaolo.rodola, gregory.p.smith, alexeicolin, p.conesa.mingo, PEAR |
2021-05-10 20:06:07 | giampaolo.rodola | set | messageid: <1620677167.1.0.316421090823.issue43743@roundup.psfhosted.org> |
2021-05-10 20:06:07 | giampaolo.rodola | link | issue43743 messages |
2021-05-10 20:06:07 | giampaolo.rodola | create | |
|