Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes:
> I also wondered briefly why we needed the out-parameter at all, and not
> just letting the caller look at errno. The answer is that we need to
> preserve it across the close() call. The more usual thing in our code
> base _would_ be to use saved_errno, but not have it as an out-parameter.
>
> I.e.:
>
> diff --git a/trace2/tr2_dst.c b/trace2/tr2_dst.c
> index ae052a07fe..bda283e7f4 100644
> --- a/trace2/tr2_dst.c
> +++ b/trace2/tr2_dst.c
> @@ -204,15 +204,16 @@ static int tr2_dst_try_uds_connect(const char *path, int sock_type, int *out_fd)
>
> fd = socket(AF_UNIX, sock_type, 0);
> if (fd == -1)
> - return errno;
> + return -1;
>
> sa.sun_family = AF_UNIX;
> strlcpy(sa.sun_path, path, sizeof(sa.sun_path));
>
> if (connect(fd, (struct sockaddr *)&sa, sizeof(sa)) == -1) {
> - int e = errno;
> + int saved_errno = errno;
> close(fd);
> - return e;
> + errno = saved_errno;
> + return -1;
> }
>
> ...
>
> I do prefer that approach, since I think it's more idiomatic for our
> code base, but for the sake of wrapping up this simple fix which has
> been discussed much more than I think it deserves, I am OK with either.
> :)
I think this alternative is more readable as well.
I'll mark the topic to be "Expecting a reroll" in the what's cooking
report.
Thanks.
