From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gorcunov@gmail.com>
Received: from mail-lf1-f67.google.com (mail-lf1-f67.google.com
 [209.85.167.67])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by dev.tarantool.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5806546971A
 for <tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>;
 Sat, 30 Nov 2019 23:36:30 +0300 (MSK)
Received: by mail-lf1-f67.google.com with SMTP id r14so8781666lfm.5
 for <tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>;
 Sat, 30 Nov 2019 12:36:30 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2019 23:36:27 +0300
From: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20191130203627.GB22394@uranus>
References: <20191129145028.GA18043@atlas> <20191129151410.GJ19879@uranus>
 <20191129183144.GB16921@atlas> <20191129191708.GN19879@uranus>
 <20191130041405.GB31199@atlas> <20191130073628.GP19879@uranus>
 <20191130100445.GA16163@atlas> <20191130104734.GR19879@uranus>
 <20191130105454.GS19879@uranus> <20191130203054.GA23121@atlas>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20191130203054.GA23121@atlas>
Subject: Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH 1/5] popen: Introduce a backend
	engine
List-Id: Tarantool development patches <tarantool-patches.dev.tarantool.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.tarantool.org/mailman/options/tarantool-patches>, 
 <mailto:tarantool-patches-request@dev.tarantool.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.tarantool.org/pipermail/tarantool-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tarantool-patches-request@dev.tarantool.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.tarantool.org/mailman/listinfo/tarantool-patches>, 
 <mailto:tarantool-patches-request@dev.tarantool.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Konstantin Osipov <kostja.osipov@gmail.com>
Cc: tml <tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>

On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 11:30:54PM +0300, Konstantin Osipov wrote:
> * Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com> [19/11/30 23:03]:
> > Forgot to mention that the example in previous message is
> > for pipe opened in blocked mode. If o_nonblock used the
> > script fails in "read" action. I think the main target now
> > for me is to investigate which mode uses python in subprocess
> > module and etc (simply because users are familiar with it and
> > will expect us to behave the same I think).
> 
> It will fail unless you handle EAGAIN and yield. Do you?

True. If I handle -EAGAIN inside my test-script it will work,
but this is not a standart behaviour users expect I think. As
I pointed in another message the python subprocess opens pipe
in blocking mode and I suppose we should do the same, otherwise
users will have to keep in mind that our pipes are opened in
nonblocking mode, which is inconvenient.