An IOCP documentation interpretation question - buffer ownership ambiguity

Posted by Poni on Stack Overflow See other posts from Stack Overflow or by Poni
Published on 2010-06-12T10:42:55Z Indexed on 2010/06/13 10:52 UTC
Read the original article Hit count: 327

Filed under:
|

Since I'm not a native English speaker I might be missing something so maybe someone here knows better than me.

Taken from WSASend's doumentation at MSDN:

lpBuffers [in]

A pointer to an array of WSABUF structures. Each WSABUF structure contains a pointer to a buffer and the length, in bytes, of the buffer. For a Winsock application, once the WSASend function is called, the system owns these buffers and the application may not access them. This array must remain valid for the duration of the send operation.

Ok, can you see the bold text? That's the unclear spot!

I can think of two translations for this line (might be something else, you name it):
Translation 1 - "buffers" refers to the OVERLAPPED structure that I pass this function when calling it. I may reuse the object again only when getting a completion notification about it.
Translation 2 - "buffers" refer to the actual buffers, those with the data I'm sending. If the WSABUF object points to one buffer, then I cannot touch this buffer until the operation is complete.

Can anyone tell what's the right interpretation to that line?

And..... If the answer is the second one - how would you resolve it?
Because to me it implies that for each and every data/buffer I'm sending I must retain a copy of it at the sender side - thus having MANY "pending" buffers (in different sizes) on an high traffic application, which really going to hurt "scalability".

Statement 1:
In addition to the above paragraph (the "And...."), I thought that IOCP copies the data to-be-sent to it's own buffer and sends from there, unless you set SO_SNDBUF to zero.

Statement 2:
I use stack-allocated buffers (you know, something like char cBuff[1024]; at the function body - if the translation to the main question is the second option (i.e buffers must stay as they are until the send is complete), then... that really screws things up big-time! Can you think of a way to resolve it? (I know, I asked it in other words above).

© Stack Overflow or respective owner

Related posts about winsock

Related posts about iocp