Re: [patch] rpcrt4_conn_np_read needs to expect and accept ERROR_MORE_DATA

[Juan Lang]

Hi Luke,

@@ -382,7 +382,14 @@ static int rpcrt4_conn_np_read(RpcConnection *Connection,
   {
     DWORD bytes_read;
     ret = ReadFile(npc->pipe, buf, bytes_left, &bytes_read, NULL);
-    if (!ret || !bytes_read)
+    if (!ret)
+    {
+      TRACE("ReadFile error, status %x\n", GetLastError());
+      if (GetLastError() != ERROR_MORE_DATA)
+         break;
+      ret = TRUE; /* ERROR_MORE_DATA is an expected acceptable error code */
+    }
+    if (!bytes_read)
         break;

Style nit:  it would be simpler to do:
     DWORD bytes_read;
     ret = ReadFile(npc->pipe, buf, bytes_left, &bytes_read, NULL);
+    if (!ret && GetLastError() == ERROR_MORE_DATA)
+        ret = TRUE;
     if (!ret || !bytes_read)
         break;

Don't you think?
--Juan

[patch] rpcrt4_conn_np_read needs to expect and accept ERROR_MORE_DATA

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 12:35 PM, Juan Lang  wrote:
> Hi Luke,
>
> @@ -382,7 +382,14 @@ static int rpcrt4_conn_np_read(RpcConnection *Connection,
> Style nit:  it would be simpler to do:
>     DWORD bytes_read;
>     ret = ReadFile(npc->pipe, buf, bytes_left, &bytes_read, NULL);
> - if (!ret && GetLastError() == ERROR_MORE_DATA)
> -
>    ret = TRUE;
> if (!ret || !bytes_read)
>       break;
>
> Don't you think?

... oh yeah :)  well, i wanted to know what was going on, so i added
the TRACE.  rob, this is clearly much better.

oh - the nice thing that you should find is that given that the
current wine NtReadFile() implementation never returns
ERROR_MORE_DATA, is that all checks that you add to treat
ERROR_MORE_DATA as "not actually an error but actually to be expected"
should have _zero_ impact.  until NamedPipes messagemode gets fixed,
of course.

l.