Phillip Susi wrote: > On 3/29/2010 12:44 PM, Jim Meyering wrote: >> If you can use an existing FD, then please do. >> That would be far better. > > Will do. > >> If you must use open, then you must handle failure, >> and must not call ioctl or close on a negative "fd". > > I'll use the existing fd so this goes away, but out of curiosity, why > not? Won't it just fail with EBADF?
Right, but those syscall failures would also pollute the results of strace and valgrind runs, not to mention those from any decent static-analyzer. We already have far too many false positives on those fronts. >> Other than this bit of quoted code, I haven't reviewed >> your change at all -- was waiting for the newer version >> you said would be coming soon. Did I miss it? > > No, you didn't. I'm going to make some of the changes that have already > been suggested and test it tonight. Should send it to you either > tonight or tomorrow morning. _______________________________________________ parted-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/parted-devel
