From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from conssluserg-04.nifty.com (conssluserg-04.nifty.com [210.131.2.83]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ECE163858406 for ; Sun, 7 Nov 2021 03:02:15 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org ECE163858406 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=nifty.ne.jp Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=nifty.ne.jp Received: from Express5800-S70 (z221123.dynamic.ppp.asahi-net.or.jp [110.4.221.123]) (authenticated) by conssluserg-04.nifty.com with ESMTP id 1A731dfS004491 for ; Sun, 7 Nov 2021 12:01:39 +0900 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.10.3 conssluserg-04.nifty.com 1A731dfS004491 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nifty.ne.jp; s=dec2015msa; t=1636254099; bh=W2mN3lBBiQWdMQm+0yZixFez/t3PRzViP3MKXbL17d8=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=xdrczryaSXAu3hoXnwdToTGDKhpmONBm7jIMpIm5L30VaMx4ySvDb982EQhNZQpCG R1ReJFbEmsBECgr3l/ZYhFdOfL40KQv1lbQHynzK6B0jgTkLR2EddClqpxnPH/SxxY xC6gFYEKVX59An6PJX+1gsa82KcIrc4qoFLIQBZDmmW8j0n3iigFoTIUsfFmUYrgKC ssw8RgD5JP66TnEP0ZIRykvCTwNglwbxxV0cOwp9HYnONZIowszPj1/YXnsfUl2NnL 53mYP04Pg8RSQEj4llWwt1/dxH1R8EWT7jLr6g25/dg+gQlgaUggfp5GCHDcWv1p7A ORonYKndnMmUg== X-Nifty-SrcIP: [110.4.221.123] Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2021 12:01:50 +0900 From: Takashi Yano To: cygwin-developers@cygwin.com Subject: Re: 3.3.0: Possible regression in cygwin DLL (Win10); fixed in snapshot Message-Id: <20211107120150.0b922847187350dcecfe598d@nifty.ne.jp> In-Reply-To: References: <20211105123950.b118a7f2ba38379764df4c12@nifty.ne.jp> <20211105170542.96ce6dd4ca32880ddfddd660@nifty.ne.jp> <20211106044116.698b465a5d8ed6ce2cc75c99@nifty.ne.jp> <2cfa5de7-3b95-9062-4572-f36d304bc916@cornell.edu> <20211106151047.4d8f626bd6ebe9e4d8017f3b@nifty.ne.jp> <20211106231336.e55208f1377b1600cfa3db02@nifty.ne.jp> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.7.0 (GTK+ 2.24.30; i686-pc-mingw32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, NICE_REPLY_A, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: cygwin-developers@cygwin.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Cygwin core component developers mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 07 Nov 2021 03:02:20 -0000 On Sat, 6 Nov 2021 18:20:03 +0100 Corinna Vinschen wrote: > On Nov 6 23:13, Takashi Yano wrote: > > On Sat, 6 Nov 2021 13:02:50 +0100 > > Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > > On Nov 6 12:42, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > > > On Nov 6 15:10, Takashi Yano wrote: > > > > > P.S. > > > > > Unfortunately, these solutions do not resolve the issue > > > > > which is another issue with C# program: > > > > > https://cygwin.com/pipermail/cygwin/2021-March/247987.html > > > > > This still needs FILE_SYNCHRONOUS_IO_NONALERT flag. > > > > > > > > If we want to add FILE_SYNCHRONOUS_IO_NONALERT, this would have to be > > > > solved by running NtReadFile/NtWriteFile synchronously in a thread, > > > > started on every invocation of raw_read/raw_write. raw_read/raw_write > > > > would then call cygwait on the thread object. To break on signal or > > > > thread cancallation events, it would have to call CancelSynchronousIo. > > > > That's certainly doable. > > > > > > That would be something for 3.4, though. For 3.3.2, we should just > > > fix the other problem. Ignoring 0 byte packets is probably the most > > > easy way out. > > > > > > With this fixed, I think I should release 3.3.2 soon. We can have as > > > much 3.3 bugfix releases as we want, anyway. > > > > We are not sure at this time if the byte pipe causes some problems. > > > > So, I think it is better to adopt the idea of ignoring 0 byte > > messages for the time being, > > Sure enough. Are you going to send the patch to cygwin-patches? All right. I will submit a patch shortly. > > and take some time to consider > > adopting the byte pipe and enabling FLAG_SYNCHRONOUS_IO_NONALERT. > > We probably don't really need byte pipe, using a synchroneous pipe > and threading should already do the trick, no? As I wrote in https://cygwin.com/pipermail/cygwin/2021-March/247987.html C# program seems to need not only FLAG_SYNCHRONOUS_IO_NONALERT but also PIPE_TYPE_BYTE. -- Takashi Yano