Re: [PATCHv15 2/5] run_processes_parallel: add LF when caller is sloppy

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

 



Stefan Beller <sbeller@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 12:07 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> The inconsistency may not hurt as long as (1) the producers of the
>> message will never stuff a NUL in the middle, and (2) strbuf always
>> has the guard NUL after its contents.  Even though we know that the
>> latter will hold true for the foreseeable future, it also is easy to
>> do the right thing here, too, so why not?
>
> What is the right thing? I asked myself and obviously it is treating the
> child->err the same in both cases of checking for a trailing LF and
> when outputting.
>
> But what is the right way to look at child->err? I would argue that
> we should allow for children to have a NUL in its output stream and
> replay their output as literal as possible.
>
> i.e. my conclusion is to replace the fputs by fwrite as opposed to
> using strlen to determine the length of string output.

Yup, that is what I meant; sorry if I were too oblique.

There are two fputs() that assumes there is no embedded NUL around
there, by the way.

Thanks.
--
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]