Anthony Liguori <anth...@codemonkey.ws> wrote:
> On 01/19/2010 06:17 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 2:11 PM, Juan Quintela<quint...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "Kirill A. Shutemov"<kir...@shutemov.name> wrote:
>>>
>>>> A variant of write(2) which handles partial write.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Kirill A. Shutemov<kir...@shutemov.name>
>>>>
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> Have you updated this series? Is there any reason that you know when
>>> they haven't been picked?
>>>
>> I don't know any reason, but I'm going to review it once again.
>>
>> I also have plan to get rid of -fno-strict-aliasing where it's possible.
>>
>
> I haven't reviewed the series in detail, but generally speaking I
> don't feel that good about these sort of series.
>
> You're essentially adding dummy error handling to quiet the compiler.
> That's worse than just disabling -Werror because at least you aren't
> losing the information in the code.
>
> If you're going to update error handling, it should be part of an
> effort to make code paths resilient to error. IOW, actually audit the
> full error path of the function and make it deal with errors
> gracefully.
I reviewed his series, and I reviewed callers. Please take a look at my
improved series. Appart for the comments added there, I don't know what
to do here:
@@ -501,8 +501,11 @@ static void aio_signal_handler(int signum)
{
if (posix_aio_state) {
char byte = 0;
+ ssize_t ret;
- write(posix_aio_state->wfd, &byte, sizeof(byte));
+ ret = write(posix_aio_state->wfd, &byte, sizeof(byte));
+ if (ret < 0 && errno != EAGAIN)
+ die("write()");
}
if write() fails in a pipe in the signal handler, I am at a lost about
what to do here.
For the rest, I think that I did the proper error path handling.
Thanks, Juan.
