On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 02:56:38PM -0800, Wayne Davison wrote: > On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, Dave Dykstra wrote: > > Of the proposed alternatives, I like this latter the best, changing > > --non-blocking-io to --no-blocking-io. > > Cool. I like that one as well. Here's an implementation. This patch > adds the configure option --with(out)-blocking-io and defines a new > variable that gets put into config.h: DEFAULT_BLOCKING_IO. > > The default for configure is just as before: remsh or rsh gets used > with blocking IO on by default. If the user specifies --with-rsh=CMD > then the default is --without-blocking-io unless the user also specifies > the --with-blocking-io configure option. > > The code in main.c now uses the DEFAULT_BLOCKING_IO value, but only when > we use the default RSYNC_RSH (internal) value. If the user specifies an > RSYNC_RSH environment variable (or a remote shell via the command-line), > the default is to use non-blocking IO. (This is a slight change in > behavior if the user had set RSYNC_RSH=rsh in their environment -- is > this acceptable?) > > The code now allows the remote shell value to contain a single prefixed > IO-blocking option. If the string starts with "--" and it has a space > in it, the string must start with "--blocking-io ", "--no-blocking-io ", > or "-- " (the last item allows someone to use a program name that > matches one of our options -- just for completeness).
I didn't test it, but I looked over the code and it looks OK to me. > I also updated the main man page to mention the new RSYNC_RSH syntax, > and also to not talk like rsh is always the default remote shell. In > the --blocking-io section, it used to say that ssh prefers blocking IO. > I've never used anything but non-blocking IO with ssh, so is this > statement backwards? I tweaked the statement to say that only some > versions of ssh prefer blocking IO. You're right, that is backwards. It should say "Ssh prefers non-blocking IO". > Don't forget to run autoconf and autoheader after applying this patch. - Dave
