Re: [PATCH] sub-process: print the cmd when a capability is unsupported

From: Christian Couder <christian.couder@gmail.com>
Date: Aug 15, 2017, 19:32 UTC
Message-ID: <CAP8UFD18KbTkQZqEXK6AsPDABda-diaMLLhyFvACeVQLb+qwrA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAP8UFD2KBEVwZE8obaDxf+0AyU4zH0+5bWJzzHazFywgWT9QjQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 9:29 PM, Christian Couder <christian.couder@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 9:00 PM, Lars Schneider
> <larsxschneider@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 15 Aug 2017, at 19:36, Christian Couder <christian.couder@gmail.com> wrote:

Show 23 quoted lines

>>> @@ -184,8 +185,8 @@ static int handshake_capabilities(struct child_process *process,
>>>                       if (supported_capabilities)
>>>                               *supported_capabilities |= capabilities[i].flag;
>>>               } else {
>>> -                     warning("external filter requested unsupported filter capability '%s'",
>>> -                             p);
>>> +                     warning("subprocess '%s' requested unsupported capability '%s'",
>>> +                             cmd, p);
>>
>> Wouldn't it be possible to use "process->argv[0]"?
>> Shouldn't that be the same as "cmd"?
>
> Well in sub-process.h there is:
>
> /* Members should not be accessed directly. */
> struct subprocess_entry {
>     struct hashmap_entry ent; /* must be the first member! */
>     const char *cmd;
>     struct child_process process;
> };
>
> so if cmd is always the same as process->argv[0], maybe there is no
> need for the cmd member in the first place?

In case it is not clear, what I mean is that if we consider that they should always be the same, it could be considered a different patch altogether to just remove the cmd member of this struct.