If the server returned less than we asked for we're at EOF

[David Collier-Brown]

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 (;-))

--dave

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
>>returns non-zero.
> 
> Aye, less-than-asked is returned on eof, but, can eof *reliably* be
> inferred from less-than-asked? And in a cifs context?
> 
> Sam
> 
>>--dave
>>
>>Amin Azez wrote:
>>
>>>libcli/clireadwrite.c/smbcli_read
>>>
>>>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?
>>>
>>>Sam
>>>
>>
> 
> 

-- 
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