On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 09:56:10AM -0700, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 03/04/2014 06:59 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
> > On 03/04/2014 06:47 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> >> On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 06:28:17AM -0700, Eric Blake wrote:
> >>> POSIX requires that <stdlib.h> expose WIFEXITED and friends,
> >>> but FreeBSD and others fail to comply. We can work around it
> >>> manually by including <sys/wait.h>, or we can work around it
> >>> automatically by using gnulib's system-posix module.
> >>>
> >>> * bootstrap.conf (gnulib_modules): Add system-posix.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Eric Blake <eblake@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> ---
> >>>
> >>> I'll wait for a review on this one - we don't use system(),
> >>> and it feels a little bit odd to list the system() module
> >>> merely for its side effect of a fixed <stdlib.h>. The alternative
> >>> is to continue using <sys/wait.h> everywhere that we use
> >>> WIFEXITED and friends.
> >>
> >> Perhaps we should have a helper in util/virprocess.{c,h} for
> >> this, so no code outside that file ever need use WIFEXITED ?
> >
> > We already have a couple of helper functions, and my recent virFork
> > cleanups got rid of even more clients of WIFEXITED (that is,
> > virCommandRun now defaults to returning sanitized rather than raw exit
> > values). At this point, there are very few reasons for any new code to
> > need to use WIFEXITED; it's mostly limited to existing code (but where
> > my virFork cleanups tripped up on the FreeBSD header bug due to
> > refactoring).
> >
>
> So, should I just ditch this patch?
I don't feel strongly either way. ACK if you thing it is worth doing
anyway.
Regards,
Daniel
--
|: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list