[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: env+nice, one bug fix, two test corrections
From: |
Eric Blake |
Subject: |
Re: env+nice, one bug fix, two test corrections |
Date: |
Wed, 28 Oct 2009 06:19:23 -0600 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.23) Gecko/20090812 Thunderbird/2.0.0.23 Mnenhy/0.7.6.666 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
According to Jim Meyering on 10/26/2009 3:04 AM:
>>From 501bf7b589e8c63c408c86fce5bb9902ae019017 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Jim Meyering <address@hidden>
> Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2009 13:50:13 +0200
> Subject: [PATCH 1/3] nice: execute program even when setpriority fails due to
> EACCES
I'm wondering if this also qualifies as a nice bug:
$ nice -n -1 2>/dev/full nice
0
$ echo $?
0
The call to error() flushes stderr (so even if fd 2 is pointing to a file
and stderr is not line-buffered, the error message is still output), but
we are failing to check ferror(stderr), when we proceed to blindly invoke
the subsidiary program even though we had a write failure. Should we
change the code to fail with EXIT_CANCELED if we detect failure to print
the advisory message?
- --
Don't work too hard, make some time for fun as well!
Eric Blake address@hidden
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Cygwin)
Comment: Public key at home.comcast.net/~ericblake/eblake.gpg
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAkroNssACgkQ84KuGfSFAYBEFACcDp+CLEt3YH2+KzLnb6uuK3t1
PHwAniZGQh8I+NAKlytL3k1iMA8dUuCU
=16o0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- env+nice, one bug fix, two test corrections, Jim Meyering, 2009/10/26
- Re: env+nice, one bug fix, two test corrections, Eric Blake, 2009/10/26
- Re: env+nice, one bug fix, two test corrections, Eric Blake, 2009/10/26
- Re: env+nice, one bug fix, two test corrections, Jim Meyering, 2009/10/26
- Re: env+nice, one bug fix, two test corrections, Eric Blake, 2009/10/26
- Re: env+nice, one bug fix, two test corrections, Jim Meyering, 2009/10/26
- Re: env+nice, one bug fix, two test corrections, Eric Blake, 2009/10/26
- Re: env+nice, one bug fix, two test corrections, Jim Meyering, 2009/10/27
Re: env+nice, one bug fix, two test corrections,
Eric Blake <=
- Re: env+nice, one bug fix, two test corrections, Jim Meyering, 2009/10/28
- Re: env+nice, one bug fix, two test corrections, Eric Blake, 2009/10/28
- Re: env+nice, one bug fix, two test corrections, Pádraig Brady, 2009/10/28
- RE: env+nice, one bug fix, two test corrections, Voelker, Bernhard, 2009/10/29
- Re: env+nice, one bug fix, two test corrections, Pádraig Brady, 2009/10/29
- RE: env+nice, one bug fix, two test corrections, Voelker, Bernhard, 2009/10/29