This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH v2.1 1/2][BZ #16274] Fix shm_open.
- From: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at redhat dot com>
- To: OndÅej BÃlka <neleai at seznam dot cz>
- Cc: libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
- Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2013 10:36:50 -0500
- Subject: Re: [PATCH v2.1 1/2][BZ #16274] Fix shm_open.
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20131129004016 dot GA19990 at domone dot podge> <5297F6B6 dot 5010609 at redhat dot com> <20131129180250 dot GA24922 at domone dot podge> <5298EF8F dot 6020700 at redhat dot com> <20131202230453 dot GA6175 at domone dot podge> <529D1AD1 dot 7080500 at redhat dot com> <20131203112032 dot GB11582 at domone dot podge> <529DF41B dot 2000500 at redhat dot com> <20131203152751 dot GA12752 at domone dot podge>
On 12/03/2013 10:27 AM, OndÅej BÃlka wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 10:09:15AM -0500, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>> On 12/03/2013 06:20 AM, OndÅej BÃlka wrote:
>>>> Shouldn't this be s/0/-1/g? It's a real failure?
>>>
>>> It is failure as we passed EXIT_FAILURE to status, arguments to error are:
>>>
>>> error (int status, int errnum, const char *format, ...)
>>>
>>
>> Sorry, I forgot the order of the arguments to this function.
>>
>> Let me rephrase my question more precisely.
>>
>> Should we instead use:
>>
>> error (EXIT_FAILURE, errno, "failed to create shared memory object: shm_open");
>>
>> Such that we print:
>>
>> "failed to create shared memory object: shm_open: `strerror(errno)'"
>>
> Possible but as existing checks pass 0 we should also convert them as
> separate patch.
Good point. I'm OK with the patch then.
Cheers,
Carlos.