On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 11:59 AM, Torsten Bögershausen <tboegi@xxxxxx> wrote:
> On 11/04/2015 12:00 AM, Stefan Beller wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 1:03 PM, Johannes Sixt <j6t@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
> The #ifdef assumes that Windows never will have O_NONBLOCK/F_GETFL)
>
> Does the following make more sense ?
> #if defined (O_NONBLOCK) && defined (F_GETFL)
>
> Or may be:
> #ifndef NO_O_NONBLOCK
>>> #ifndef GIT_WINDOWS_NATIVE
>>> int flags = fcntl(fd, F_GETFL);
>>> if (flags < 0)
>>> warning("Could not get file status flags, "
>>> "output will be degraded");
>>> else if (fcntl(fd, F_SETFL, flags | O_NONBLOCK))
>>> #endif
>>> warning("Could not set file status flags, "
>>> "output will be degraded");
>>> }
>>>
Reading Junios answer to the resent patch[1], I am currently debating
if this is the right way to go anyway. As Junio points out, this is
not a warning
but rather a critical issue such that we'd maybe rather die(...) than
just warning(...),
which would make the discussion about the correct condition in the #ifdef moot.
[1] [PATCHv3 02/11] run-command: report failure for degraded output just once
--
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