Hi Duy, On Wed, 3 May 2017, Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy wrote:
> In the first case, we already correctly return -1 if fopen() fails to > open. But we should report something so people know what's wrong. > > In the second case, config_file == NULL does not necessarily mean "no > config file". Bail out if needed. > > Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclo...@gmail.com> Again, it seems that your patch series tries to cut at the file boundary, not at the "logically the same change" boundary, making it a bit more cumbersome than necessary to follow this patch series. I highly recommend squashing the first change into the big fopen() -> fopen_or_warn() patch I hinted at earlier, and let the second change (with the accompanying test case) stand on its own. Ciao, Dscho
