Re: [PATCH 1/2] xopen: explicitly report creation failures
From: René Scharfe <hidden>
Date: 2021-08-26 15:23:35
Am 26.08.21 um 01:46 schrieb Carlo Arenas:
On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 2:11 PM René Scharfe [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
diff --git a/wrapper.c b/wrapper.c index 563ad590df..7c6586af32 100644 --- a/wrapper.c +++ b/wrapper.c@@ -193,7 +193,9 @@ int xopen(const char *path, int oflag, ...) if (errno == EINTR) continue; - if ((oflag & O_RDWR) == O_RDWR) + if ((oflag & (O_CREAT | O_EXCL)) == (O_CREAT | O_EXCL)) + die_errno(_("unable to create '%s'"), path);probably over conservative, but && errno == EEXIST?
No matter what error we got, if O_CREAT and O_EXCL were both given then we tried to create a file, so this message applies.
quoted
+ else if ((oflag & O_RDWR) == O_RDWR) die_errno(_("could not open '%s' for reading and writing"), path); else if ((oflag & O_WRONLY) == O_WRONLY) die_errno(_("could not open '%s' for writing"), path);Since you are already changing this code, why not take the opportunity to refactor it and remove the " == FLAG" part of these conditionals which is otherwise redundant?
The repetition is unsightly, but it's a different issue that should be addressed separately. Simply removing the comparison feels iffy, though. POSIX doesn't seem to forbid e.g. O_RDONLY to be 1, O_WRONLY to be 2 and O_RDWR to be 3, and then you need to check all masked bits. I can't think of simpler alternative to the comparison.
Either way "Reviewed-by", and indeed a nice cleanup.
Thank you! René