On Mon, Feb 01 2021, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> When git invokes a pager that exits with non-zero the common case is
>> that we'll already return the correct SIGPIPE failure from git itself,
>> but the exit code logged in trace2 has always been incorrectly
>> reported[1]. Fix that and log the correct exit code in the logs.
>>
>> Since this gives us something to test outside of our recently-added
>> tests needing a !MINGW prerequisite, let's refactor the test to run on
>> MINGW and actually check for SIGPIPE outside of MINGW.
>>
>> The wait_or_whine() is only called with a true "in_signal" from from
>> finish_command_in_signal(), which in turn is only used in pager.c.
>>
>> I'm not quite sure about that BUG() case. Can we have a true in_signal
>> and not have a true WIFEXITED(status)? I haven't been able to think of
>> a test case for it.
>>
>> 1. The incorrect logging of the exit code in was seemingly copy/pasted
>> into finish_command_in_signal() in ee4512ed481 (trace2: create new
>> combined trace facility, 2019-02-22)
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> run-command.c | 8 +++++--
>> t/t7006-pager.sh | 61 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
>> 2 files changed, 58 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/run-command.c b/run-command.c
>> index ea4d0fb4b15..10e1c96c2bd 100644
>> --- a/run-command.c
>> +++ b/run-command.c
>> @@ -551,8 +551,12 @@ static int wait_or_whine(pid_t pid, const char *argv0, int in_signal)
>>
>> while ((waiting = waitpid(pid, &status, 0)) < 0 && errno == EINTR)
>> ; /* nothing */
>> - if (in_signal)
>> - return 0;
>> + if (in_signal && WIFEXITED(status))
>> + return WEXITSTATUS(status);
>> + if (in_signal) {
>> + BUG("was not expecting waitpid() status %d", status);
>> + return -1;
>> + }
>
> Doesn't BUG die, never to return control back to us? How about
> "warning()" or "error()"?
Maybe I shouldn't do that, but I'm doing it reflexively because SunCC
will yell at me otherwise. See 56f56ac50b9 (style: do not "break" in
switch() after "return", 2020-12-16).
Maybe I should just deal with its complaints, or add an "/* unreachable
*/" comment there...
