Zhiyang Lu

I concur with the points made by @dridi . Specifically, I believe that the use case of SSL_writev is compelling enough that we can consider replacing/updating all those internal write...

> Please can you submit a CLA? > > https://openssl-library.org/policies/cla/ Yup emailed it this morning, still pending approval c:

Thank you both @mattcaswell and @kroeckx for your interest and spending time to review my code. My CLA has been approved, so after I make all the suggested improvements, I...

Thank you everyone for your interest and time in reading through my code! I have implemented changes from most of the comments and I have responded to the rest. I...

> So Linux has a pwritev(), that supports an additional offset. We should consider that for the combination with SSL_MODE_ENABLE_PARTIAL_WRITE. Sorry wanted to clarify, do you mean SSL_MODE_ENABLE_PARTIAL_WRITE or SSL_MODE_ACCEPT_MOVING_WRITE_BUFFER?...

@kroeckx I see what you mean now. I was under the impression that removing written data is the responsibility of the caller, I refer to the description of SSL_MODE_ENABLE_PARTIAL_WRITE from...

@kroeckx I have updated the SSL_writev such that if the flag is set, we use the value stored inside _*written_ to indicate that the first _*written_ bytes will be skipped...

I was thinking that instead of using two arguments, the *written can first store the offset, but once the method returns, *written will return the new total amount that has...

@kroeckx @t-j-h Thank you for both of your input. I have updated the SSL_writev to accept an additional argument, offset.

@mattcaswell @kroeckx @t-j-h @t8m Hi everyone, thank you for the feedback that you all have provided. I was hoping to get a status update for this PR. If there are...