Re: [PATCH v2] Fix detection of uname failure

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

 



Hi Junio,

On 2015-07-17 23:39, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@xxxxxx> writes:
> 
>> On 2015-07-17 19:09, Charles Bailey wrote:
>>> From: Charles Bailey <cbailey32@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> According to POSIX specification uname must return -1 on failure and a
>>> non-negative value on success. Although many implementations do return 0
>>> on success it is valid to return any positive value for success.  In
>>> particular, Solaris returns 1.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Charles Bailey <cbailey32@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> Acked-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@xxxxxx>
> 
> I'd s/Ack/Review/; as the original is not your code but you are well
> qualified (and have my trust) to judge the change to this codepath
> ;-)

Yeah, that's what I meant ;-)

Ciao,
Dscho
--
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]