On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 10:33:49AM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > > Which means that your original wish may not be granted with > > SO_KEEPALIVE at all, no? I was wondering if you wanted a forced > > timeout based on alarm(2), something similar to what you added to > > git-daemon in 960deccb (git-daemon: timeout, eliminate double DWIM, > > 2005-10-19). > > > > Yes, something more like that on the client end. SO_KEEPALIVE is better > than nothing, but not really good enough.
Would it be enough to just use timeout(1), like: timeout 10m git fetch That will time the _whole_ fetch operation, which means a legitimately gigantic but fast fetch would still fail. Setting a shorter timeout only for periods of inactivity on the network socket would catch killed or very laggy connections. But it would not catch a server that feeds you data at a constant but ridiculously slow rate. -Peff -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
