On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 10:44 AM, Stefan Beller <sbeller@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 10:58 PM, Torsten Bögershausen <tboegi@xxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 2015-11-20 22.08, Stefan Beller wrote:
>> The patch looks good at first glance, one minor remark below:
>>>
>>> diff --git a/run-command.c b/run-command.c
>>
>>> @@ -1071,70 +1089,31 @@ static void pp_output(struct parallel_processes *pp)
>>>
>>> static int pp_collect_finished(struct parallel_processes *pp)
>>> {
>>> - int i = 0;
>>> - pid_t pid;
>>> - int wait_status, code;
>>> + int i, code;
>>
>> code is probably "return code"?
>> woud "ret_value", "res" or "rc" make that more clear ?
>>
>
Although looking through the code, we have lots of functions
having a local `code` variable, so we may want to preserve consistency
across the different functions to have a `code`which contains the return
value of the process or function invoked.
We had the `code` already in pp_collect_finished, so I'd like to not
rename a variable (which was used for the same purpose) in this patch.
In pp_start_one we introduce a new variable `code` which contains
the return from the user callback function, so I would understand if
we were arguing there.
That said, I plan to resend with a reworded commit message later today.
--
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