> On 15 Aug 2017, at 19:36, Christian Couder <christian.couder@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> In handshake_capabilities() we use warning() when a capability
> is not supported, so the exit code of the function is 0 and no
> further error is shown. This is a problem because the warning
> message doesn't tell us which subprocess cmd failed.
>
> On the contrary if we cannot write a packet from this function,
> we use error() and then subprocess_start() outputs:
>
> initialization for subprocess '<cmd>' failed
>
> so we can know which subprocess cmd failed.
>
> Let's improve the warning() message, so that we can know which
> subprocess cmd failed.
>
> Signed-off-by: Christian Couder <chriscool@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> sub-process.c | 13 ++++++++-----
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/sub-process.c b/sub-process.c
> index 6edb97c1c6..6b133f8dce 100644
> --- a/sub-process.c
> +++ b/sub-process.c
> @@ -158,7 +158,8 @@ static int handshake_version(struct child_process *process,
>
> static int handshake_capabilities(struct child_process *process,
> struct subprocess_capability *capabilities,
> - unsigned int *supported_capabilities)
> + unsigned int *supported_capabilities,
> + const char *cmd)
> {
> int i;
> char *line;
> @@ -184,8 +185,8 @@ static int handshake_capabilities(struct child_process *process,
> if (supported_capabilities)
> *supported_capabilities |= capabilities[i].flag;
> } else {
> - warning("external filter requested unsupported filter capability '%s'",
> - p);
> + warning("subprocess '%s' requested unsupported capability '%s'",
> + cmd, p);
Wouldn't it be possible to use "process->argv[0]"?
Shouldn't that be the same as "cmd"?
- Lars
