Re: [PATCH v7 02/40] builtin/apply: make apply_patch() return -1 instead of die()ing

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

 



Christian Couder <christian.couder@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

> +/*
> + * Try to apply a patch.
> + *
> + * Returns:
> + *  -1 if an error happened
> + *   0 if the patch applied
> + *   1 if the patch did not apply
> + */
>  static int apply_patch(struct apply_state *state,
>  		       int fd,
>  		       const char *filename,
> @@ -4413,6 +4421,7 @@ static int apply_patch(struct apply_state *state,
>  	struct strbuf buf = STRBUF_INIT; /* owns the patch text */
>  	struct patch *list = NULL, **listp = &list;
>  	int skipped_patch = 0;
> +	int res = 0;
>  
>  	state->patch_input_file = filename;
>  	read_patch_file(&buf, fd);
> @@ -4445,8 +4454,10 @@ static int apply_patch(struct apply_state *state,
>  		offset += nr;
>  	}
>  
> -	if (!list && !skipped_patch)
> -		die(_("unrecognized input"));
> +	if (!list && !skipped_patch) {
> +		res = error(_("unrecognized input"));
> +		goto end;
> +	}

Before this patch, the program said "fatal: $message" and exited
with status = 128.  All these changes in this step modifies the
external behaviour and make it say "error: $message" and exit with
status = 1 (at least the caller in apply_all_patches() does so).

Will that be an issue for the calling scripts?

--
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]