On 7/16/24 12:45, Alexey Khoroshilov wrote:
Yes, but there is another possible modification: replacement of call to nonseekable_open() by a call to some other function that returns error. Current code is already ready for such modification.
The change of which function is called would change the behavior indeed, but, TBH, I do not see it as a valid point: If we assume that nonseekable_open() changes to something else in the future, we may assume as well that some other call will be added later with a risk of resource leaking. This is a thing, that whoever would do such changes should be careful about. For me, the code as it is now, is not uniform with the other places that use nonseekable_open().
