Re: [PATCH 05/16] fsmonitor--daemon: refactor cookie handling for readability
- From
Derrick Stolee <derrickstolee@github.com>
- Date
- Mar 14, 2022, 14:49 UTC
- Message-ID
- <7ddeffc4-3442-b4a1-e6f4-e68b3aa3f5ec@github.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <220314.86bky9ezdw.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com>
On 3/14/2022 4:00 AM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 11 2022, Jeff Hostetler via GitGitGadget wrote:
Show 11 quoted lines
>> + /* >> + * Technically, close() and unlink() can fail, but we don't >> + * care here. We only created the file to trigger a watch >> + * event from the FS to know that when we're up to date. >> + */ >> + close(fd); > > It still seems odd to explicitly want to ignore close() return values. > > I realize that we do in (too many) existing places, but why wouldn't we > want to e.g. catch an I/O error here early?
What exactly do you propose we do here if there is an I/O error during close()?
Thanks, -Stolee