Thiago Farina <tfransosi@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 5:50 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Thiago Farina <tfransosi@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>>> In imap-send.c:socket_perror() we pass |func| as a parameter, which I
>>> think it is the name of the function that "called" socket_perror, or
>>> the name of the function which generated an error.
>>>
>>> But at line 184 and 187 it always assume it was SSL_connect.
>>>
>>> Should we instead call perror() and ssl_socket_error() with func?
>>
>> Looks that way to me, at least from a cursory look.
> Would you accept such a patch?
This back-and-forth makes me wonder what is going on. Why not send
a full patch with a proper proposed commit log message to the list
and see what happens?
> diff --git a/imap-send.c b/imap-send.c
> index 0bc6f7f..bb04768 100644
> --- a/imap-send.c
> +++ b/imap-send.c
> @@ -181,10 +181,10 @@ static void socket_perror(const char *func,
> struct imap_socket *sock, int ret)
> case SSL_ERROR_NONE:
> break;
> case SSL_ERROR_SYSCALL:
> - perror("SSL_connect");
> + perror(func);
> break;
> default:
> - ssl_socket_perror("SSL_connect");
> + ssl_socket_perror(func);
> break;
> }
> } else
>
> --
> Thiago Farina
--
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