On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 7:37 AM Scott Cheloha
wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 07:28:40AM -0700, Todd C. Miller wrote:
> > On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 20:02:18 -0800, Philip Guenther wrote:
> >
> > > > I think futimens(2) and close(2) failures are exotic enough to
> warrant
> > > > printing the system
On Fri, 28 Jan 2022 09:37:33 -0600, Scott Cheloha wrote:
> Alright, you have both convinced me.
>
> We'll go with this patch?
Sure. OK millert@
- todd
On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 07:28:40AM -0700, Todd C. Miller wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 20:02:18 -0800, Philip Guenther wrote:
>
> > > I think futimens(2) and close(2) failures are exotic enough to warrant
> > > printing the system call name.
> >
> > I don't understand this. Can you give an
On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 20:02:18 -0800, Philip Guenther wrote:
> > I think futimens(2) and close(2) failures are exotic enough to warrant
> > printing the system call name.
> >
>
> I don't understand this. Can you give an example of an error message that
> touch currently might emit where knowing
On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 4:03 PM Scott Cheloha
wrote:
> If futimens(2) fails here then close(2) is not called and we leak the
> descriptor.
>
Good catch.
I think futimens(2) and close(2) failures are exotic enough to warrant
> printing the system call name.
>
I don't understand this. Can you
If futimens(2) fails here then close(2) is not called and we leak the
descriptor.
I think futimens(2) and close(2) failures are exotic enough to warrant
printing the system call name.
ok?
Index: touch.c
===
RCS file:
