From: Felipe Contreras Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 11:50:00 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH] transport-helper: check when helpers fail Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <5084E931.3010809@viscovery.net> On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 8:35 AM, Johannes Sixt wrote: > Am 10/21/2012 21:19, schrieb Felipe Contreras: > I would expect the function to be usable in this way: > > start_command(&proc); > > loop { > if (check_command(&proc)) > break; > } > > finish_command(&proc); > > but it would require a bit more work because it would have to cache the > exit status in struct child_process. Yes, I would expect that as well. I just noticed transport-helper also fails with that, but some reason that's not enough to actually fail the tests, so something weird is going on. > BTW, you should check for return value 0 from waitpid() explicitly. Right. > Another thought: In your use-case, isn't it so that it would be an error > that the process exited for whatever reason? I.e., even if it exited with > code 0 ("success"), it would be an error because it violated the protocol? How is that violating the protocol? -- Felipe Contreras