[PATCH] gatio: do not read if no read_handler

[Kristen Carlson Accardi]

On Mon, 10 May 2010 12:23:04 -0500
Denis Kenzior <denkenz at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Kristen,
> 
> > On Mon, 10 May 2010 09:11:52 -0500
> > 
> > Denis Kenzior <denkenz at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Hi Kristen,
> > >
> > > > If no read_handler specified, leave data alone in case someone
> > > > else wants to read it.
> > > > ---
> > > >  gatchat/gatio.c   |    4 ++++
> > > >  gatchat/gsmdial.c |   12 ++++--------
> > > >  2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/gatchat/gatio.c b/gatchat/gatio.c
> > > > index 61b0260..b4a3806 100644
> > > > --- a/gatchat/gatio.c
> > > > +++ b/gatchat/gatio.c
> > > > @@ -91,6 +91,10 @@ static gboolean received_data(GIOChannel *channel,
> > > >  GIOCondition cond, if (cond & G_IO_NVAL)
> > > >  		return FALSE;
> > > >
> > > > +	/* if nobody wants this data, leave it alone */
> > > > +	if (io->read_handler == NULL)
> > > > +		return TRUE;
> > > > +
> > >
> > > This is a really bad idea, we should never have cases where the read
> > > handler is unset, and if we do we should end up closing the socket when
> > > the buffer is full.
> > 
> > In your implementation of g_at_chat_suspend, you set the read handler to
> >  NULL.
> > 
> 
> Correct, with the intent that someone else sets the read handler (e.g. 
> g_at_ppp)

What if you receive data after the read handler is set to NULL, but before
someone else sets the read handler?  shouldn't we safe guard against that?