From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Brian Cully via "Emacs development discussions." Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: eglot and tramp Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2022 07:29:16 -0500 Message-ID: <8735ajdqw3.fsf@ditto.jhoto.spork.org> References: <878rkddngy.fsf@ditto.jhoto.spork.org> <875yfgkza3.fsf@gmx.de> <875yfgdscr.fsf@ditto.jhoto.spork.org> <87v8ng6lxe.fsf@gmx.de> Reply-To: Brian Cully Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="32858"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: "Brian Cully via Emacs development discussions." , Pedro Andres Aranda Gutierrez To: Michael Albinus Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Wed Nov 16 13:31:07 2022 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1ovHZL-0008Pv-FH for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 16 Nov 2022 13:31:07 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ovHYf-0005K3-IA; Wed, 16 Nov 2022 07:30:26 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ovHYc-0005Hv-DT for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 16 Nov 2022 07:30:22 -0500 Original-Received: from coleridge.kublai.com ([166.84.7.167] helo=mail.spork.org) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ovHYa-0002MJ-9Q for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 16 Nov 2022 07:30:22 -0500 Original-Received: from ditto (ool-18b8e9e7.dyn.optonline.net [24.184.233.231]) by mail.spork.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 10D25C70C; Wed, 16 Nov 2022 07:29:16 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=spork.org; s=dkim; t=1668601767; bh=IiBGq1WB4iF6ljCku+PT+ob42gJ96ks0HiZdsbUWURs=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date; b=wzZf7KQp9srvKY5A01XQcloUNvcvdkZp2YocpikXGeOJLCDEYlhdl1BVbEKNg8M61 lLbOJEGx1k0484idjBGVyp8KkeDe/DiRQn2aGoZVISbuimFYUkPm42wzlYcWvcS0x0 BvyCHlWv1iulk+deijeMW43GJ1/Sr5vDVixWjoXM= In-Reply-To: <87v8ng6lxe.fsf@gmx.de> Received-SPF: pass client-ip=166.84.7.167; envelope-from=bjc@spork.org; helo=mail.spork.org X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:299916 Archived-At: Michael Albinus writes: > Great! Since you are a regular eglot+Tramp user, could I ask you for a > test? > > I assume you are using Tramp with ssh or scp. If you also don't use a > password (for example via public key authentication), please try the > following setting: > > --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- > (add-to-list 'tramp-connection-properties > (list (regexp-quote "/ssh:user@host:") > "direct-async-process" t)) > --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- > > "/ssh:user@host:" must be adapted of course, and you must set this prior > opening a connection to this remote path. This should give you better > performance when starting the language server. I use eglot+Tramp with various containers (nspawn, docker, podman), which don't support the =E2=80=98tramp-direct-async=E2=80=99 flag, so I'm n= ot sure how helpful this testing would be. I know we've spoken about that flag before, and I came away from those discussions with the impression that those methods should not support direct-async, but I'm unsure why. I have only skimmed the relevant code, but it seems like there shouldn't be a problem with supporting direct-async on the container methods. Is there some danger I should be aware of? If it's safe enough, I'd be happy to flag support for direct-async in the methods and do the above test. WDYT? -bjc