Well we assign fd to be -1 above signalfd() and afterwards never read it. That's what my compiler complained about.
Thinking further i guess its the assignment thats redundant since cleanup attribute calls safe_close() that basiclly assigns fd to be -1. I got, gcc version 4.9.0 20140604 (prerelease) (GCC) 2014-06-26 13:12 GMT+02:00 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <[email protected]>: > On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 12:50:40PM +0200, Daniel Buch wrote: > > Not sure this is an appropiate fix, feel free to leave it out > > > > --- > > src/shared/ask-password-api.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/src/shared/ask-password-api.c > b/src/shared/ask-password-api.c > > index 5997a03..39eab0d 100644 > > --- a/src/shared/ask-password-api.c > > +++ b/src/shared/ask-password-api.c > > @@ -344,7 +344,7 @@ int ask_password_agent( > > > > fd = -1; > > > > - signal_fd = signalfd(-1, &mask, SFD_NONBLOCK|SFD_CLOEXEC); > > + signal_fd = signalfd(fd, &mask, SFD_NONBLOCK|SFD_CLOEXEC); > > if (signal_fd < 0) { > > log_error("signalfd(): %m"); > > r = -errno; > The compiler should not warn here, since fd has a cleanup function defined, > which obviously looks at fd. What compiler and version is that? > > Zbyszek > >
_______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
