> On 15 Aug 2017, at 19:36, Christian Couder <[email protected]> wrote: > > In handshake_capabilities() we use warning() when a capability > is not supported, so the exit code of the function is 0 and no > further error is shown. This is a problem because the warning > message doesn't tell us which subprocess cmd failed. > > On the contrary if we cannot write a packet from this function, > we use error() and then subprocess_start() outputs: > > initialization for subprocess '<cmd>' failed > > so we can know which subprocess cmd failed. > > Let's improve the warning() message, so that we can know which > subprocess cmd failed. > > Signed-off-by: Christian Couder <[email protected]> > --- > sub-process.c | 13 ++++++++----- > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/sub-process.c b/sub-process.c > index 6edb97c1c6..6b133f8dce 100644 > --- a/sub-process.c > +++ b/sub-process.c > @@ -158,7 +158,8 @@ static int handshake_version(struct child_process > *process, > > static int handshake_capabilities(struct child_process *process, > struct subprocess_capability *capabilities, > - unsigned int *supported_capabilities) > + unsigned int *supported_capabilities, > + const char *cmd) > { > int i; > char *line; > @@ -184,8 +185,8 @@ static int handshake_capabilities(struct child_process > *process, > if (supported_capabilities) > *supported_capabilities |= capabilities[i].flag; > } else { > - warning("external filter requested unsupported filter > capability '%s'", > - p); > + warning("subprocess '%s' requested unsupported > capability '%s'", > + cmd, p);
Wouldn't it be possible to use "process->argv[0]"? Shouldn't that be the same as "cmd"? - Lars
