Re: [PATCH 1/3] usage: refactor die-recursion checks

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 07:45:03PM -0400, Eric Sunshine wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 7:08 PM, Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > This patch teaches die() to print the original die message
> > to stderr before reporting the recursion. The custom
> > die_routine may or may not have put it the message to
> 
> s/put it the/emitted/ perhaps?

I meant s/ it//, but I think "sent the message to..." is probably more
clear.

> > stderr, but this is the best we can do (it is what most
> > handlers will do anyway, and it is where our recursion error
> > will go).
> >
> > While we're at it, let's mark the "recursion detected"
> > message as a "BUG:", since it should never happen in
> > practice. And let's factor out the repeated code in die and
> > die_errno. This loses the information of which function was
> > called to cause the recursion, but it's important; knowing
> 
> Was this supposed to be s/important/unimportant/?

Urgh, yes, it was originally "not important" but I lost the "not" while
trying to clarify the wording.

Thanks.

-Peff
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]