Re: [updated patch v3 1/2] Report exec errors from run-command

Johannes Sixt [off-list ref] writes:

Ilari Liusvaara schrieb:

quoted

+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.

quoted

+	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.

quoted

+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.