I have a question and a comment about my own patch :)
On Thursday 02 July 2015, Ruediger Meier wrote:
> @@ -367,7 +365,7 @@ static void handle_signal(struct script_control
> *ctl, int fd)
>
> bytes = read(fd, &info, sizeof(info));
> if (bytes != sizeof(info)) {
> - if (errno == EAGAIN)
> + if (bytes < 0 && errno == EAGAIN)
> return;
Should we also return on EINTR here like we do in handle_io()?
> fail(ctl);
> }
And I see some more potential problems. For example see this snippet
from handle_io();
bytes = read(fd, buf, sizeof(buf));
if (bytes < 0) {
DBG(IO, ul_debug(" read failed"));
if (errno == EAGAIN || errno == EINTR)
return;
fail(ctl);
}
We are using errno after DBG(). But in theory printf() or whatever we do
in DBG() could change errno. Wouldn't it be a good idea to write
generally all DBG macros errno-invariant?
cu,
Rudi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe util-linux" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
