Michael Haggerty wrote:
> --- a/lockfile.c
> +++ b/lockfile.c
> @@ -219,13 +219,13 @@ int hold_lock_file_for_append(struct lock_file *lk, const char *path, int flags)
> if (errno != ENOENT) {
> if (flags & LOCK_DIE_ON_ERROR)
> die("cannot open '%s' for copying", path);
> - close(fd);
> + rollback_lock_file(lk);
> return error("cannot open '%s' for copying", path);
Makes sense.
Now that I'm here, I wonder a little at the error convention. If the
caller doesn't pass LOCK_DIE_ON_ERROR, are they supposed to be able to
use unable_to_lock_message? What errno would they pass in the err
parameter? Would callers want handle failure to acquire a lock
differently from other errors (e.g., by sleeping and trying again),
and if not, what is the optionally-die behavior in hold_lock_file
about?
In any case,
Reviewed-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@xxxxxxxxx>
--
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