From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 2010 05:11:35 GMT
Subject: Re: [updated patch v3 1/2] Report exec errors from run-command
Message-ID: <7vaawt87aw.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <4B3CF568.1050705@kdbg.org>

Johannes Sixt <j6t@kdbg.org> writes:

> Ilari Liusvaara schrieb:
>> +static inline void force_close(int fd)
>> +{
>> +	/*
>> +	 * The close is deemed success or failed in non-transient way if
>> +	 * close() suceeds, returns EBADF or error other than EINTR or
>> +	 * EAGAIN.
>> +	 */
>> +	while (close(fd) < 0 && errno != EBADF)
>> +		if(errno != EINTR && errno != EAGAIN)
>> +			break;
>
> You are constantly ignoring proposals to iterate only on EINTR and
> EAGAIN, but do not make an argument why you do otherwise. Did I miss
> something?

Meaning something like this?

	static inline void force_close(int fd)
	{
		/*
		 * Retry failed close() on EINTR or EAGAIN
		 */
		while (close(fd) < 0 && (errno == EINTR || errno == EAGAIN))
			; /* try again */
	}

which should be equivalent as long as EBADF is different from EINTR and
EAGAIN, I think.

>> +	if (cmd->pid > 0) {
>> +		int r = 0, ret;
>> +		force_close(report_pipe[1]);
>> +read_again:
>> ...
>> +			if(waitpid(cmd->pid, &ret, 0) < 0 && errno == EINTR)
>> +				/* Nothing. */ ;
>> +			cmd->pid = -1;
>
> As per Documentation/technical/api-run-command.txt, you should write
> an error here, except if (failed_errno==ENOENT &&
> cmd->silent_exec_failure!=0).

I was planning to replace the earlier series that was dropped from pu with
this iteration, but I guess I'll wait for another round before doing so.

Thanks for reviewing.

>> +test_expect_success "reporting ENOENT" \
>> +"test-run-command 1"
>
> I wonder what this parameter "1" is good for...

I guessed that this is for adding more tests to test-run-command in the
future and not having to change this test, in which case I think it is a
sensible thing to do.