sunfishcode opened PR #6909 from sunfishcode:pch/backpressure_2
to bytecodealliance:pch/backpressure_2
:
<!--
Please make sure you include the following information:
If this work has been discussed elsewhere, please include a link to that
conversation. If it was discussed in an issue, just mention "issue #...".Explain why this change is needed. If the details are in an issue already,
this can be brief.Our development process is documented in the Wasmtime book:
https://docs.wasmtime.dev/contributing-development-process.htmlPlease ensure all communication follows the code of conduct:
https://github.com/bytecodealliance/wasmtime/blob/main/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md
-->
sunfishcode requested pchickey for a review on PR #6909.
sunfishcode requested wasmtime-core-reviewers for a review on PR #6909.
elliottt merged PR #6909.
pchickey submitted PR review.
pchickey submitted PR review.
pchickey created PR review comment:
streams::blocking-flush
takes care of this entire nested case, because I figured it would be common.
pchickey created PR review comment:
this is
blocking-check-write
for the common case. Also, no loop is needed because check_write is guaranteed to give Some() after the pollable is ready.
pchickey created PR review comment:
Incorrect- that is not the number written, that is the number permitted to write next. Since you already called
streams::check_write
, you can callstreams::write(output, slice_to_write)
and be assured all of those bytes will be written. If they will not be written, write will trap.
Last updated: Nov 22 2024 at 17:03 UTC