Re: [PATCH 2/3] run-command: Be more informative about what failed

> Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org> writes:
>
>> While debugging an error with verify_signed_buffer() the error
>> messages from run-command weren't very useful:
>>
>>  error: cannot create pipe for gpg: Too many open files
>>  error: could not run gpg.
>>
>> because they didn't indicate *which* pipe couldn't be created.
> For the message emitted here with your update (or without for that
> matter) to be useful, it has to hold that there is a single leaker,
> that leaker fails in this codepath, and that there is nobody else
> involved.  Otherwise, you may be able to tell that one caller could
> not create its stdin, but the reason it couldn't may be because
> somebody else consumed all the available file descriptors.
>
> I am not opposed to this change per-se, but I am not sure that
> saying "stdin" etc. makes the message more useful for the purpose of
> debugging.

>
>> For example, the above error now prints:
>>
>>  error: cannot create stderr pipe for gpg: Too many open files
>>  error: could not run gpg.
> I'd prefer to see these names spelled out (e.g. "standard error")
> in any case.