[#69892] [Ruby trunk - Feature #11339] [Open] [PATCH] io.c: avoid kwarg parsing in C API — normalperson@...
Issue #11339 has been reported by Eric Wong.
8 messages
2015/07/07
[#69983] Re: [Ruby trunk - Feature #11339] [Open] [PATCH] io.c: avoid kwarg parsing in C API
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2015/07/15
normalperson@yhbt.net wrote:
[#69990] Re: [Ruby trunk - Feature #11339] [Open] [PATCH] io.c: avoid kwarg parsing in C API
— SASADA Koichi <ko1@...>
2015/07/16
On 2015/07/16 4:41, Eric Wong wrote:
[#69995] Re: [Ruby trunk - Feature #11339] [Open] [PATCH] io.c: avoid kwarg parsing in C API
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2015/07/16
SASADA Koichi <ko1@atdot.net> wrote:
[#69984] $SAFE inside an Array — Bertram Scharpf <lists@...>
Hi,
4 messages
2015/07/15
[#70001] [Ruby trunk - Bug #11336] [Open] TestProcess#test_exec_fd_3_redirect failed on Solaris 10 — ngotogenome@...
Issue #11336 has been updated by Naohisa Goto.
4 messages
2015/07/16
[#70005] Re: [Ruby trunk - Bug #11336] [Open] TestProcess#test_exec_fd_3_redirect failed on Solaris 10
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2015/07/16
Sorry, but I think rb_divert_reserved_fd seems a racy fix. I think the
[#70011] [Ruby trunk - Bug #11362] [Open] [PATCH] ensure Process.kill(:STOP, $$) is resumable — normalperson@...
Issue #11362 has been reported by Eric Wong.
3 messages
2015/07/17
[#70016] [Ruby trunk - Bug #11364] [Open] Use smaller buffer for sendmsg — merch-redmine@...
Issue #11364 has been reported by Jeremy Evans.
8 messages
2015/07/17
[#70052] Re: [Ruby trunk - Bug #11364] [Open] Use smaller buffer for sendmsg
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2015/07/20
merch-redmine@jeremyevans.net wrote:
[#70055] Re: [Ruby trunk - Bug #11364] [Open] Use smaller buffer for sendmsg
— Jeremy Evans <code@...>
2015/07/20
On 07/20 10:46, Eric Wong wrote:
[#70056] Re: [Ruby trunk - Bug #11364] [Open] Use smaller buffer for sendmsg
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2015/07/21
Jeremy Evans <code@jeremyevans.net> wrote:
[#70103] [Ruby trunk - Feature #11375] Decreased Object Allocation in Pathname.rb — richard.schneeman@...
Issue #11375 has been updated by Richard Schneeman.
3 messages
2015/07/23
[#70156] [Ruby trunk - Bug #11396] Bad performance in ruby >= 2.2 for Hash with many symbol keys — dunric29a@...
Issue #11396 has been updated by David Unric.
3 messages
2015/07/28
[ruby-core:70053] Re: [Ruby trunk - Bug #11364] [Open] Use smaller buffer for sendmsg
From:
Jeremy Evans <code@...>
Date:
2015-07-20 23:01:35 UTC
List:
ruby-core #70053
On 07/20 10:46, Eric Wong wrote:
> merch-redmine@jeremyevans.net wrote:
> > Bug #11364: Use smaller buffer for sendmsg
> > https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/11364
> >
> > OpenBSD's limit is less than 128.
>
> Btw, this is pretty disappointing since I want to use SOCK_SEQPACKET
> more for IPC in some projects.
>
> Does SO_RCVBUF/SO_SNDBUF help in OpenBSD with SOCK_SEQPACKET sockets?
Yes, the limit can be raised above the default:
$ irb22 -rsocket
irb(main):001:0> s1, s2 = UNIXSocket.pair(:SEQPACKET)
=> [#<UNIXSocket:fd 9>, #<UNIXSocket:fd 10>]
irb(main):002:0> s1.send("a" * 8192, 0)
Errno::EMSGSIZE: Message too long - send(2)
from (irb):2:in `send'
from (irb):2
from /usr/local/bin/irb22:11:in `<main>'
irb(main):003:0> s1.setsockopt(:SOCKET, :SNDBUF, 65536)
=> 0
irb(main):004:0> s1.send("a" * 8192, 0)
=> 8192
Not sure why the default limit for SEQPACKET is so low on OpenBSD. I'm
guessing nobody uses SEQPACKET so nobody complains about the low limit.
I'll see if there is a good reason for it, or if the default can be
raised in future versions if not.
Thanks,
Jeremy