Am 13.10.2017 um 19:51 schrieb Ralf Thielow: > When ftruncate() in rearrange_squash() fails, we write > that we couldn't finish the operation on the todo file. > It is more accurate to write that we couldn't truncate > as we do in other calls of ftruncate(). Would it make sense to factor out rewriting the to-do file to avoid code duplication in the first place? > While at there, remove a full stop in another error message. > > Signed-off-by: Ralf Thielow <ralf.thielow@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > sequencer.c | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/sequencer.c b/sequencer.c > index e258bb646..b0e6459a5 100644 > --- a/sequencer.c > +++ b/sequencer.c > @@ -2948,9 +2948,9 @@ int rearrange_squash(void) > if (fd < 0) > res = error_errno(_("could not open '%s'"), todo_file); > else if (write(fd, buf.buf, buf.len) < 0) > - res = error_errno(_("could not read '%s'."), todo_file); > + res = error_errno(_("could not read '%s'"), todo_file); ^^^^ That should read "write", right? > else if (ftruncate(fd, buf.len) < 0) > - res = error_errno(_("could not finish '%s'"), > + res = error_errno(_("could not truncate '%s'"), > todo_file); Hmm, why call ftruncate(2) instead of opening the file with O_TRUNC? > close(fd); > strbuf_release(&buf); >