On 07/20/2010 09:23 PM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: >> + exec AT_JOB_OUTFIFO_FD<&- > > Doesn't this have to be > exec AT_JOB_OUTFIFO_FD>&- > > instead?
Technically, no: n>&- and n<&- are identical, regardless of what mode the fd was originally opened in (and must be, so that you can blindly do 'exec 5<&-' to close a possibly-inherited fd 5 without knowing what mode it was opened in, all without error if fd 5 is not already open). [Plain <&- and >&- differ, but only because they default to 0<&- and 1>&-]. But for readability, yes, it should be consistent, since we know that fd is opened for output. I already fixed that in my pending patch post. -- Eric Blake ebl...@redhat.com +1-801-349-2682 Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
