On Mon, 11 Mar 2024 11:47:32 +0100
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> Hi Takashi,
> 
> On Mar 10 19:31, Takashi Yano wrote:
> > @@ -590,6 +591,10 @@ child_info_spawn::worker (const char *prog_arg, const 
> > char *const *argv,
> >           {
> >             fhandler_pipe *pipe = (fhandler_pipe *)(fhandler_base *) cfd;
> >             pipe->set_pipe_non_blocking (false);
> > +           pipew_duped = (fhandler_pipe *)
> > +                   ccalloc (HEAP_FHANDLER, 1, sizeof (fhandler_pipe));
> > +           pipew_duped = new (pipew_duped) fhandler_pipe;
> > +           pipe->dup (pipew_duped, 0);
> >             if (pipe->request_close_query_hdl ())
> >               need_send_sig = true;
> >           }
> 
> The code setting up pipes and the dummy_tty is sufficiently complex,
> so that I wonder if it shouldn't have
> 
> - its own methods and
> - comments to describe why this stuff is necessary.
> 
> What about adding two methods, kind of like (the names are only
> suggestion, albeit bad ones):
> 
>   child_info_spawn::noncygwin_child_pre_fork()
> 
> to keep the above stuff together (plus comments) and
> 
>   child_info_spawn::noncygwin_child_post_fork()
> 
> for the below code?
> 
> > @@ -597,6 +602,10 @@ child_info_spawn::worker (const char *prog_arg, const 
> > char *const *argv,
> >           {
> >             fhandler_pipe *pipe = (fhandler_pipe *)(fhandler_base *) cfd;
> >             pipe->set_pipe_non_blocking (false);
> > +           piper_duped = (fhandler_pipe *)
> > +                   ccalloc (HEAP_FHANDLER, 1, sizeof (fhandler_pipe));
> > +           piper_duped = new (piper_duped) fhandler_pipe;
> > +           pipe->dup (piper_duped, 0);
> >           }
> >  
> >       if (need_send_sig)
> > @@ -905,6 +914,19 @@ child_info_spawn::worker (const char *prog_arg, const 
> > char *const *argv,
> >           term_spawn_worker.cleanup ();
> >           term_spawn_worker.close_handle_set ();
> >         }
> > +     if (pipew_duped)
> > +       {
> > +         bool is_nonblocking = pipew_duped->is_nonblocking ();
> > +         pipew_duped->set_pipe_non_blocking (is_nonblocking);
> 
> Is that really right?  You're asking pipew_duped for its
> nonblocking flag and then set pipew_duped to the same value...?
> 
> > +         pipew_duped->close ();
> > +         cfree (pipew_duped);
> > +       }

Thanks for the reviewing and advice. I'll work for v2 patch. Please wait a 
while.

-- 
Takashi Yano <takashi.y...@nifty.ne.jp>

Reply via email to