# [PATCH] setup.c: remove needless argument passed to open in sanitize_stdfds 2 messages from 2018-11-25 to 2018-11-26. Participants: pedrodelyra@gmail.com, Junio C Hamano. Thread: https://gitlist.dev/t/49891 ## pedrodelyra@gmail.com, 2018-11-25 16:20 Subject: [PATCH] setup.c: remove needless argument passed to open in sanitize_stdfds Message-ID: <20181125162008.30065-1-pedrodelyra@gmail.com> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/20181125162008.30065-1-pedrodelyra%40gmail.com ``` From: Pedro de Lyra Signed-off-by: Pedro de Lyra --- According to POSIX manual pages, the open() system call's mode argument specifies the file mode bits to be applied when a new file is created. If neither O_CREAT nor O_TMPFILE is specified, then mode is ignored. So I guess that 0 argument only confuses the reader. setup.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/setup.c b/setup.c index 1be5037f1..d4fd14bb7 100644 --- a/setup.c +++ b/setup.c @@ -1228,7 +1228,7 @@ const char *resolve_gitdir_gently(const char *suspect, int *return_error_code) /* if any standard file descriptor is missing open it to /dev/null */ void sanitize_stdfds(void) { - int fd = open("/dev/null", O_RDWR, 0); + int fd = open("/dev/null", O_RDWR); while (fd != -1 && fd < 2) fd = dup(fd); if (fd == -1) -- 2.17.1 ``` ## Junio C Hamano, 2018-11-26 04:39 Subject: Re: [PATCH] setup.c: remove needless argument passed to open in sanitize_stdfds Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/xmqqmupwzc47.fsf%40gitster-ct.c.googlers.com In-Reply-To: <20181125162008.30065-1-pedrodelyra@gmail.com> ``` pedrodelyra@gmail.com writes: > According to POSIX manual pages, the open() system call's mode > argument specifies the file mode bits to be applied when a new > file is created. If neither O_CREAT nor O_TMPFILE is specified, > then mode is ignored. Correct. While I would say two argument form would have been better if this were a new code, this change is borderline Meh for existing code, because passing 0 there already gives a reasonable sign that we know this parameter does not matter. If the ignored parameter were 0666 or some other more plausible-as-perm-bits value, the story would be quite different, though. Thanks. ```