Eric Wong <e@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> larsxschneider@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> +++ b/read-cache.c
>> @@ -156,7 +156,11 @@ void fill_stat_cache_info(struct cache_entry *ce, struct stat *st)
>> static int ce_compare_data(const struct cache_entry *ce, struct stat *st)
>> {
>> int match = -1;
>> - int fd = open(ce->name, O_RDONLY);
>> + int fd = open(ce->name, O_RDONLY | O_CLOEXEC);
>> +
>> + if (O_CLOEXEC && fd < 0 && errno == EINVAL)
>> + /* Try again w/o O_CLOEXEC: the kernel might not support it */
>> + fd = open(ce->name, O_RDONLY);
>
> In the case of O_CLOEXEC != 0 and repeated EINVALs,
> it'd be good to use something like sha1_file_open_flag as in 1/2
> so we don't repeatedly hit EINVAL. Thanks.
Sounds sane.
It's just only once, so perhaps we do not mind a recursion like
this?
read-cache.c | 9 ++++++---
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/read-cache.c b/read-cache.c
index b594865d89..a6978b9321 100644
--- a/read-cache.c
+++ b/read-cache.c
@@ -156,11 +156,14 @@ void fill_stat_cache_info(struct cache_entry *ce, struct stat *st)
static int ce_compare_data(const struct cache_entry *ce, struct stat *st)
{
int match = -1;
- int fd = open(ce->name, O_RDONLY | O_CLOEXEC);
+ static int cloexec = O_CLOEXEC;
+ int fd = open(ce->name, O_RDONLY | cloexec);
- if (O_CLOEXEC && fd < 0 && errno == EINVAL)
+ if ((cloexec & O_CLOEXEC) && fd < 0 && errno == EINVAL) {
/* Try again w/o O_CLOEXEC: the kernel might not support it */
- fd = open(ce->name, O_RDONLY);
+ cloexec &= ~O_CLOEXEC;
+ return ce_compare_data(ce, st);
+ }
if (fd >= 0) {
unsigned char sha1[20];