If the server returned less than we asked for we're at EOF
davecb at sun.com
Wed Nov 28 16:20:47 GMT 2007
No, less than read is sufficient if and only if you're looking at an unchanging file.
(zero bytes read || feof) is sufficient IFF its an unchanging file
EOF on a constantly growing file is just hard (;-))
Amin Azez wrote:
> * David Collier-Brown wrote, On 28/11/07 13:47:
>>Unix systems return less than asked on EOF, and after reaching
>>EOF on an unchanging file will return 0 bytes and feof(fp) will
> Aye, less-than-asked is returned on eof, but, can eof *reliably* be
> inferred from less-than-asked? And in a cifs context?
>>Amin Azez wrote:
>>>says: If the server returned less than we asked for we're at EOF
>>>I'm aware that if it returns 0 bytes we're at EOF, is it strictly true
>>>that less-than-asked-for also means EOF?
>>>My caching code returns smaller-than-asked-for reads if the full amount
>>>isn't in the cache, and so far no clients have interpreted this as EOF,
>>>but kept from where the previous read left off.
>>>Am I supposed to make use of the "remaining" field here?
David Collier-Brown | Always do right. This will gratify
Sun Microsystems, Toronto | some people and astonish the rest
davecb at sun.com | -- Mark Twain
(800) 555-9786 x56583 cell: (647) 833-9377 home off: (416) 223-5943
More information about the samba-technical