On Thu, Jul 02, 2015 at 12:21:02PM +0200, Ruediger Meier wrote:
> I have a question and a comment about my own patch :)
:-)
I have applied the patch with some small changes:
> 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()?
It's probably more robust, Fixed.
> 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?
It seems like overkill solution to modify DBG() and always save errno
on all places. I think it's better to care about this locally on place
where you use DBG(). Fixed in script(1).
Karel
--
Karel Zak <kzak@xxxxxxxxxx>
http://karelzak.blogspot.com
--
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
