fix: don't know why, confused

Signed-off-by: discord9 <[email protected]>

Author: discord9

src/net/tcp/stream.rs

@@ -214,8 +214,8 @@ impl TcpStream {
     pub fn peek(&self, buf: &mut [u8]) -> io::Result<usize> {
         #[cfg(all(windows, feature = "net", feature = "os-poll"))]
         {
-            // self.inner.do_io_and_reregister(|inner| inner.peek(buf))
-            self.inner.peek(buf)
+            self.inner.do_io_and_reregister(|inner| inner.peek(buf))
+            // self.inner.peek(buf)
         }
         #[cfg(not(all(windows, feature = "net", feature = "os-poll")))]
         {

src/sys/windows/mod.rs

@@ -106,7 +106,7 @@ cfg_io_source! {
             let result = f(io);
 
             let is_ok_or_would_block = match &result{
-                Ok(_) => false,
+                Ok(_) => true,
                 Err(e) if e.kind() == io::ErrorKind::WouldBlock => true,
                 _ => false
             };

tests/tcp_stream.rs

@@ -975,7 +975,7 @@ fn peek_ok(){
         &mut events,
         vec![ExpectEvent::new(ID1, Readiness::READABLE)],
     );
-    
+
     assert_eq!(stream2.write(&[0]).unwrap(), 1);
     expect_events(
         &mut poll,
@@ -1006,7 +1006,6 @@ fn peek_would_block(){
     expect_no_events(&mut poll, &mut events);
 
     assert_eq!(stream2.write(&[0]).unwrap(), 1);
-    // a would block peek also should not remove readable interest
     expect_events(
         &mut poll,
         &mut events,
@@ -1017,7 +1016,9 @@ fn peek_would_block(){
     assert_would_block(stream1.peek(&mut buf));
 
     assert_eq!(stream2.write(&[0, 1, 2, 3]).unwrap(), 4);
-    // a would block peek also should not remove readable interest
+
+    // this panic with no event on windows if not re-register after would block peek
+    // I don't know why it need to re-register for that to work
     expect_events(
         &mut poll,
         &mut events,