Re: [PATCH v2] Fix detection of uname failure

Johannes Schindelin [off-list ref] writes:

On 2015-07-17 19:09, Charles Bailey wrote:

quoted

From: Charles Bailey <redacted>

According to POSIX specification uname must return -1 on failure and a
non-negative value on success. Although many implementations do return 0
on success it is valid to return any positive value for success.  In
particular, Solaris returns 1.

Signed-off-by: Charles Bailey <redacted>

Acked-by: Johannes Schindelin <redacted>

I'd s/Ack/Review/; as the original is not your code but you are well
qualified (and have my trust) to judge the change to this codepath
;-)

Thanks.

Hi Junio,

On 2015-07-17 23:39, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Johannes Schindelin [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

On 2015-07-17 19:09, Charles Bailey wrote:

quoted

From: Charles Bailey <redacted>

According to POSIX specification uname must return -1 on failure and a
non-negative value on success. Although many implementations do return 0
on success it is valid to return any positive value for success.  In
particular, Solaris returns 1.

Signed-off-by: Charles Bailey <redacted>

Acked-by: Johannes Schindelin <redacted>

I'd s/Ack/Review/; as the original is not your code but you are well
qualified (and have my trust) to judge the change to this codepath
;-)

Yeah, that's what I meant ;-)

Ciao,
Dscho