On 09/16/2014 10:39 PM, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>> Michael Haggerty wrote:
>
>>> --- a/lockfile.c
>>> +++ b/lockfile.c
>>> @@ -276,7 +276,7 @@ void rollback_lock_file(struct lock_file *lk)
>>> return;
>>>
>>> if (lk->fd >= 0)
>>> - close(lk->fd);
Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Michael Haggerty wrote:
>> --- a/lockfile.c
>> +++ b/lockfile.c
>> @@ -276,7 +276,7 @@ void rollback_lock_file(struct lock_file *lk)
>> return;
>>
>> if (lk->fd >= 0)
>> -close(lk->fd);
>> +close_lock_file(lk);
>
> Doesn't need t
Michael Haggerty wrote:
> --- a/lockfile.c
> +++ b/lockfile.c
> @@ -276,7 +276,7 @@ void rollback_lock_file(struct lock_file *lk)
> return;
>
> if (lk->fd >= 0)
> - close(lk->fd);
> + close_lock_file(lk);
Doesn't need to be guarded by the 'if'.
--
To
When rolling back the lockfile, call close_lock_file() so that the
lock_file's fd field gets set back to -1. This keeps the lock_file
object in a valid state, which is important because these objects are
allowed to be reused.
Signed-off-by: Michael Haggerty
Reviewed-by: Ronnie Sahlberg
---
loc
4 matches
Mail list logo