Am 26.08.21 um 01:46 schrieb Carlo Arenas:
> On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 2:11 PM René Scharfe <l.s.r@xxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> diff --git a/wrapper.c b/wrapper.c
>> index 563ad590df..7c6586af32 100644
>> --- a/wrapper.c
>> +++ b/wrapper.c
>> @@ -193,7 +193,9 @@ int xopen(const char *path, int oflag, ...)
>> if (errno == EINTR)
>> continue;
>>
>> - if ((oflag & O_RDWR) == O_RDWR)
>> + if ((oflag & (O_CREAT | O_EXCL)) == (O_CREAT | O_EXCL))
>> + die_errno(_("unable to create '%s'"), path);
>
> probably over conservative, but && errno == EEXIST?
No matter what error we got, if O_CREAT and O_EXCL were both given then
we tried to create a file, so this message applies.
>
>> + else if ((oflag & O_RDWR) == O_RDWR)
>> die_errno(_("could not open '%s' for reading and writing"), path);
>> else if ((oflag & O_WRONLY) == O_WRONLY)
>> die_errno(_("could not open '%s' for writing"), path);
>
> Since you are already changing this code, why not take the opportunity
> to refactor it
> and remove the " == FLAG" part of these conditionals which is
> otherwise redundant?
The repetition is unsightly, but it's a different issue that should be
addressed separately. Simply removing the comparison feels iffy,
though. POSIX doesn't seem to forbid e.g. O_RDONLY to be 1, O_WRONLY
to be 2 and O_RDWR to be 3, and then you need to check all masked bits.
I can't think of simpler alternative to the comparison.
> Either way "Reviewed-by", and indeed a nice cleanup.
Thank you!
René
