Chris Packham <judge.pack...@gmail.com> writes:
> On 28/05/14 18:14, Jeremiah Mahler wrote:
>> From signal(2)
>>
>> The behavior of signal() varies across UNIX versions, and has also var‐
>> ied historically across different versions of Linux. Avoid its use:
>> use sigaction(2) instead. See Portability below.
>
> Minor nit. The last sentence applies to the man page you're quoting and
> doesn't really make sense when viewed in the context of this commit
> message. Same applies to other patches in this series.
>
>>
>> Replaced signal() with sigaction() in progress.c
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jeremiah Mahler <jmmah...@gmail.com>
>> ---
>> progress.c | 6 +++++-
>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/progress.c b/progress.c
>> index 261314e..24df263 100644
>> --- a/progress.c
>> +++ b/progress.c
>> @@ -66,8 +66,12 @@ static void set_progress_signal(void)
>> static void clear_progress_signal(void)
>> {
>> struct itimerval v = {{0,},};
>> + struct sigaction sa;
>> +
>> + memset(&sa, 0, sizeof(sa));
>> + sa.sa_handler = SIG_IGN;
>
> A C99 initialiser here would save the call to memset. Unfortunately
> Documentation/CodingGuidelines is fairly clear on not using C99
> initialisers, given the fact we're now at git 2.0 maybe it's time to
> revisit this policy?
If I look at the initialization of v in the context immediately above
the new code, it would appear that somebody already revisited this
policy.
--
David Kastrup
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
