[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] hurd: Implement MSG_CMSG_CLOEXEC

From: Samuel Thibault
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] hurd: Implement MSG_CMSG_CLOEXEC
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2023 00:18:31 +0200
User-agent: NeoMutt/20170609 (1.8.3)

Sergey Bugaev, le mar. 25 avril 2023 00:35:58 +0300, a ecrit:
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2023 at 12:10 AM Samuel Thibault
> <samuel.thibault@gnu.org> wrote:
> > Applied, thanks!
> Thank you -- but I see you changed it to say "fds[j] | fd_flags".
> For one thing it would be nice of you to indicate that this was your
> change, not mine,

That change is not actually in this commit, but in the previous where I
left fds[j] as it was. In this commit we just add | fd_flags.

> because as things are it looks like I wrote that,
> but I didn't. Linux docs (I was about to write "kernel docs", heh)
> suggest this pattern:
> > it is recommended that you add a line between the last
> > Signed-off-by header and yours, indicating the nature of your
> > changes. While there is nothing mandatory about this, it seems like
> > prepending the description with your mail and/or name, all enclosed
> > in square brackets, is noticeable enough to make it obvious that you
> > are responsible for last-minute changes. Example :
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Random J Developer <random@developer.example.org>
> > [lucky@maintainer.example.org: struct foo moved from foo.c to foo.h]
> > Signed-off-by: Lucky K Maintainer <lucky@maintainer.example.org>

Ah, I didn't know about that style.

> But on the technical side of things, I don't think we should take
> whatever integer arrives in the message and use it as flags. We never
> check it for sanity; who knows what might be there;

Right. I have added the filtering, then. Yes, "& 0" looks odd, but I'd
rather keep in code the documentation of how we believe it's supposed to
work, for people to find it later whenever needed.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]