> On 15 Aug 2017, at 21:29, Christian Couder <christian.couder@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 9:00 PM, Lars Schneider
> <larsxschneider@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> 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"?
>
> Well in sub-process.h there is:
>
> /* Members should not be accessed directly. */
> struct subprocess_entry {
> struct hashmap_entry ent; /* must be the first member! */
> const char *cmd;
> struct child_process process;
> };
>
> so if cmd is always the same as process->argv[0], maybe there is no
> need for the cmd member in the first place?
The struct is a hash map entry. `cmd` is the key for a `process`.
Therefore, I think this is still necessary.
Does this make sense?
- Lars
