[RFC PATCH v2 04/11] server: Attempt to complete I/O request immediately in recv_socket.

[Jinoh Kang]

On 1/26/22 03:23, Zebediah Figura (she/her) wrote:
> On 1/22/22 08:36, Jinoh Kang wrote:
>> diff --git a/include/wine/afd.h b/include/wine/afd.h
>> index efd5787e90a..1e26739229d 100644
>> --- a/include/wine/afd.h
>> +++ b/include/wine/afd.h
>> @@ -37,6 +37,23 @@ struct afd_wsabuf_32
>>   # define WS(x)    x
>>   #endif
>>   +
>> +/* Used in the iosb.result field to indicate that the current socket I/O
>> + * operation is in synchronous non-blocking mode.  This value is normally
>> + * transmitted via the APC_ASYNC_IO system APC call (with status STATUS_ALERTED)
>> + * when the server gives the client a chance to complete the I/O synchronously
>> + * before resuming the request as fully asynchronous I/O or failing it.
>> + * If the I/O fails with EWOULDBLOCK and the iosb.result field is set to any
>> + * other value, the client shall request the server to resume the asynchronous
>> + * operation.
>> + *
>> + * The value (ULONG_PTR)-1 (the maximum value of ULONG_PTR) is chosen so that
>> + * it will be least likely to be confused with "the number of bytes transferred
>> + * so far."  Any I/O operation that has made it to the maximum number of bytes
>> + * shall complete immediately anyway.
>> + */
>> +#define AFD_WINE_IN_NONBLOCKING_MODE ((ULONG_PTR)-1)
>> +
> 
> Why add this instead of returning a separate field from the recv_socket request?

It's not intended to be returned from recv_socket request.

> This value is normally transmitted via the APC_ASYNC_IO system APC call (with status STATUS_ALERTED)
> transmitted via the APC_ASYNC_IO system APC call (with status STATUS_ALERTED)
> when the server gives the client a chance to complete the I/O synchronously

Do you have any suggestion as to how to better pass the blocking/nonblocking flag to async_recv_proc()?

-- 
Sincerely,
Jinoh Kang