On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 08:41:32PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Junio C Hamano <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > I wonder if it is OK to only special case ENOENT for !fp cases,
> > where existing code silently returns. Perhaps it is trying to read
> > an optional file, and it returns silently because lack of it is
> > perfectly OK for the purpose of the code. Are there cases where
> > this optional file is inside an optional directory, leading to
> > ENOTDIR, instead of ENOENT, observed and reported by your check?
>
> "git grep -B1 warn_on_inaccessible" is enlightening. I wonder if we
> want to wrap the two lines into a hard to misuse helper function,
> something along this line. Would having this patch as a preparatory
> step shrink your series? The patch count would be the same, but you
> wouldn't be writing "if (errno != ENOENT)" lines yourself.
I had a similar thought while reading through it. I think it would be
shorter still with:
FILE *fopen_or_warn(const char *path, const char *mode)
{
FILE *fh = fopen(path, mode);
if (!fh)
warn_failure_to_read_open_optional_path(path);
return fh;
}
And then quite a few of the patches could just be
s/fopen/fopen_or_warn/.
-Peff
