Re: socket_perror() bug?
Thiago Farina tfrans...@gmail.com writes: On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 5:50 PM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote: Thiago Farina tfrans...@gmail.com writes: In imap-send.c:socket_perror() we pass |func| as a parameter, which I think it is the name of the function that called socket_perror, or the name of the function which generated an error. But at line 184 and 187 it always assume it was SSL_connect. Should we instead call perror() and ssl_socket_error() with func? Looks that way to me, at least from a cursory look. Would you accept such a patch? This back-and-forth makes me wonder what is going on. Why not send a full patch with a proper proposed commit log message to the list and see what happens? diff --git a/imap-send.c b/imap-send.c index 0bc6f7f..bb04768 100644 --- a/imap-send.c +++ b/imap-send.c @@ -181,10 +181,10 @@ static void socket_perror(const char *func, struct imap_socket *sock, int ret) case SSL_ERROR_NONE: break; case SSL_ERROR_SYSCALL: - perror(SSL_connect); + perror(func); break; default: - ssl_socket_perror(SSL_connect); + ssl_socket_perror(func); break; } } else -- Thiago Farina -- 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
Re: socket_perror() bug?
On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 5:50 PM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote: Thiago Farina tfrans...@gmail.com writes: In imap-send.c:socket_perror() we pass |func| as a parameter, which I think it is the name of the function that called socket_perror, or the name of the function which generated an error. But at line 184 and 187 it always assume it was SSL_connect. Should we instead call perror() and ssl_socket_error() with func? Looks that way to me, at least from a cursory look. Would you accept such a patch? diff --git a/imap-send.c b/imap-send.c index 0bc6f7f..bb04768 100644 --- a/imap-send.c +++ b/imap-send.c @@ -181,10 +181,10 @@ static void socket_perror(const char *func, struct imap_socket *sock, int ret) case SSL_ERROR_NONE: break; case SSL_ERROR_SYSCALL: - perror(SSL_connect); + perror(func); break; default: - ssl_socket_perror(SSL_connect); + ssl_socket_perror(func); break; } } else -- Thiago Farina -- 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
Re: socket_perror() bug?
Thiago Farina tfrans...@gmail.com writes: In imap-send.c:socket_perror() we pass |func| as a parameter, which I think it is the name of the function that called socket_perror, or the name of the function which generated an error. But at line 184 and 187 it always assume it was SSL_connect. Should we instead call perror() and ssl_socket_error() with func? Looks that way to me, at least from a cursory look. -- 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
