From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) From: Lyndon Nerenberg In-Reply-To: <1f84be967187ad0ab70e35a0fc1f7063@coraid.com> Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 15:32:11 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <3456bc974ba7b432c1e61cb5a5492314@ladd.quanstro.net> <87B8E7AD-7956-4F2F-8F59-566651922EED@corpus-callosum.com> <9900fab97779679305fe3fceec64a38d@coraid.com> <1f84be967187ad0ab70e35a0fc1f7063@coraid.com> To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Subject: Re: [9fans] dns vs. textrr Topicbox-Message-UUID: 5fbd3f32-ead7-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On 2012-01-19, at 2:12 PM, erik quanstrom wrote: > that seems a bit ... goofy. it would seem better for > bio to do this internally? surely there isn't code that > relies on this behavior? Or maybe realloc() a larger buffer and try to carry on? There's no = guarantee of buffer pointer consistency across B* calls, is there? = Default to 8K (or whatever), and place an adjustable cap of, say, 128K, = on the dynamic bsize. Given some XML stanzas I've seen lately, elastic buffers have a lot of = appeal ...=