On 8/18/2020 8:04 PM, Jonathan Tan wrote:
>> If the lock file already exists, then fail silently. This will become
>
> Maybe "skip all maintenance steps silently"?
>
>> + if (hold_lock_file_for_update(&lk, lock_path, LOCK_NO_DEREF) < 0) {
>> + /*
>> + * Another maintenance command is running.
>> + *
>> + * If --auto was provided, then it is likely due to a
>> + * recursive process stack. Do not report an error in
>> + * that case.
>> + */
>> + if (!opts->auto_flag && !opts->quiet)
>> + error(_("lock file '%s' exists, skipping maintenance"),
>> + lock_path);
>> + free(lock_path);
>> + return 0;
>> + }
>
> As it is, this doesn't seem very silent. :-) If we do want a message to
> be printed maybe make it warning instead of error.
Sorry, it is silent when "--auto" is specified. The commit message needs
to reflect this properly. This could easily be downgraded to a warning.
> Other than that, the idea of having a lock file and the implementation
> in this patch look good to me.
Thanks,
-Stolee
