On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 11:20:54AM -0800, Jonathan Tan wrote: > > In the case of proxy_request(), we don't know ahead of time whether the > > request is large or not; we just proxy the data through. And we don't do > > the probe thing at all. So wouldn't we dropping some data for the > > follow-up request? > > Thanks - I'll look into this. Maybe the best way is to somehow make the > v2 code path also use post_rpc() - I'll see if that's possible.
Yeah, that makes sense. > In the meantime, do you have any other opinions on the other patches, > besides introducing a prereq [1]? I don't have any strong opinions for > or against this, so I didn't reply, but I slightly prefer not having the > prereq so that test readers and authors don't need to juggle so many > variables in their heads. I think Ævar convinced me that the way you've done it is the right way, so ignore my earlier comments. :) I just took another pass and left a few very minor nits, but it all looks good overall. > If everything looks good, I'll suggest that we drop this patch from this > patch set for me to work on it independently. (Having said that, this > patch set is based on js/protocol-advertise-multi, which is still under > review, so it is not so urgent.) Yeah, that's fine by me (with or without my nits addressed). -Peff
