2017-10-13 23:12 GMT+02:00 René Scharfe <l.s.r@xxxxxx>:
> 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?
>
Sure. I'll send a new version of this patch to fix the messages. Maybe
someone else picks up the other things. Thanks.
>> 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);
>>
