On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 11:20:04AM +0100, René Scharfe wrote: > Am 17.11.2017 um 23:06 schrieb Jeff King: > > There's one more case in write_section() that uses "==". That's not > > actually wrong, but I wonder if we'd want to make it "< 0" for > > consistency. > > Actually it *is* wrong. Thanks for digging, I didn't look beyond that single line. > -- >8 -- > Subject: [PATCH] config: flip return value of write_section() > > d9bd4cbb9cc (config: flip return value of store_write_*()) made > write_section() follow the convention of write(2) to return -1 on error > and the number of written bytes on success. 3b48045c6c7 (Merge branch > 'sd/branch-copy') changed it back to returning 0 on error and 1 on > success, but left its callers still checking for negative values. > > Let write_section() follow the convention of write(2) again to meet the > expectations of its callers. Yikes. It looks like this slipped by on the tests because we always check "< 0" in the callers, not non-zero. So success would not look like failure, but failure would look like success. And write failure does not happen regularly in the test suite. So this looks correct, and well-explained. > Reported-by: Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Rene Scharfe <l.s.r@xxxxxx> I'm not sure I deserve a reported-by if I say "it looks fine" but am totally wrong. ;) -Peff
