On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 8:35 AM, Johannes Sixt <j.s...@viscovery.net> wrote:
> Am 10/21/2012 21:19, schrieb Felipe Contreras:
> I would expect the function to be usable in this way:
>
> start_command(&proc);
>
> loop {
> if (check_command(&proc))
> break;
> }
>
> finish_command(&proc);
>
> but it would require a bit more work because it would have to cache the
> exit status in struct child_process.
Yes, I would expect that as well. I just noticed transport-helper also
fails with that, but some reason that's not enough to actually fail
the tests, so something weird is going on.
> BTW, you should check for return value 0 from waitpid() explicitly.
Right.
> Another thought: In your use-case, isn't it so that it would be an error
> that the process exited for whatever reason? I.e., even if it exited with
> code 0 ("success"), it would be an error because it violated the protocol?
How is that violating the protocol?
--
Felipe Contreras
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
