fix to util_sock.c

Jeremy Allison jeremy at
Sun Nov 12 20:03:17 GMT 2000

On Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 01:56:32PM -0600, Christopher R. Hertel wrote:
> First, I understand and agree with our points about read() vs. recv(). 
> There is a lot of experience on the Team that defies textbook "good
> practice".  I learned this the hard way myself.  Samba, by its very
> nature, is an adaptation to the harsh realities of the world.
> Your approach to performance fixes, however, belies a certain
> benchmark-oriented point of view.  The kind of streamlining you describe
> is *very important*, but it isn't the only way to improve the code.  For
> example, I got good feedback from you, and others, on the work I've done
> simply rationalizing some of the modules.  Our code, in some places, is
> dense and messy.  It doesn't get fixed because a) it works, and b) it is
> not on any critical path.  That doesn't mean that it's the 'right'.

Ah yes, I see what you mean. I do appreciate making the code
simpler and more maintainable, but I was referring to the
specific read vs. recv point - you're right - we should 
have added comments when we discovered this bug to save the
time and effort of other people.


Buying an operating system without source is like buying
a self-assembly Space Shuttle with no instructions.

More information about the samba-technical mailing list