Return-Path: <bremner@unb.ca>
X-Original-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
Delivered-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B88F431FD0
	for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 03:13:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.3
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5
	tests=[RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=disabled
Received: from olra.theworths.org ([127.0.0.1])
	by localhost (olra.theworths.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id c+3Z7DRWujIc for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>;
	Tue, 10 Jan 2012 03:13:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tempo.its.unb.ca (tempo.its.unb.ca [131.202.1.21])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BE227431FB6
	for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 03:13:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from zancas.localnet
	(fctnnbsc36w-156034072155.pppoe-dynamic.High-Speed.nb.bellaliant.net
	[156.34.72.155]) (authenticated bits=0)
	by tempo.its.unb.ca (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q0ABDoB0019948
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO);
	Tue, 10 Jan 2012 07:13:51 -0400
Received: from bremner by zancas.localnet with local (Exim 4.77)
	(envelope-from <bremner@unb.ca>)
	id 1RkZeI-0001j8-Lm; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 07:13:50 -0400
From: David Bremner <david@tethera.net>
To: Dmitry Kurochkin <dmitry.kurochkin@gmail.com>,
	Austin Clements <amdragon@MIT.EDU>, notmuch@notmuchmail.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Properly handle short writes in sigint handlers
In-Reply-To: <87fwgbkst0.fsf@gmail.com>
References: <20111222201553.GK10376@mit.edu>
	<1324584948-8009-1-git-send-email-amdragon@mit.edu>
	<87fwgbkst0.fsf@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Notmuch/0.11~rc3 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.3.1
	(x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 07:13:50 -0400
Message-ID: <87sjjnkdxt.fsf@zancas.localnet>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system."
	<notmuch.notmuchmail.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/options/notmuch>,
	<mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://notmuchmail.org/pipermail/notmuch>
List-Post: <mailto:notmuch@notmuchmail.org>
List-Help: <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch>,
	<mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 11:13:55 -0000

On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 23:10:35 +0400, Dmitry Kurochkin <dmitry.kurochkin@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Austin.
> 
> I think we should put the write loop into a separate function and reuse
> it.

I could go either way on this, unless there is somewhere else the code
is actually needed at the moment.

> 
> Also, does it make sense to add a retry counter to prevent infinite loop
> if write keeps returning 0?

I wonder about this too. Is this possibility ignorable Austin?

d