Jonathan Nieder <jrnie...@gmail.com> writes:
> Hi,
>
> Erik Faye-Lund wrote:
>
>> --- a/builtin/merge.c
>> +++ b/builtin/merge.c
>> @@ -367,7 +367,7 @@ static void squash_message(struct commit *commit, struct
>> commit_list *remotehead
>> sha1_to_hex(commit->object.sha1));
>> pretty_print_commit(&ctx, commit, &out);
>> }
>> - if (write(fd, out.buf, out.len) < 0)
>> + if (xwrite(fd, out.buf, out.len) < 0)
>> die_errno(_("Writing SQUASH_MSG"));
>
> Shouldn't this use write_in_full() to avoid a silently truncated result? (*)
Meaning this? If so, I think it makes sense.
builtin/merge.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/builtin/merge.c b/builtin/merge.c
index 6e108d2..a6a38ee 100644
--- a/builtin/merge.c
+++ b/builtin/merge.c
@@ -367,7 +367,7 @@ static void squash_message(struct commit *commit, struct
commit_list *remotehead
sha1_to_hex(commit->object.sha1));
pretty_print_commit(&ctx, commit, &out);
}
- if (xwrite(fd, out.buf, out.len) < 0)
+ if (write_in_full(fd, out.buf, out.len) != out.len)
die_errno(_("Writing SQUASH_MSG"));
if (close(fd))
die_errno(_("Finishing SQUASH_MSG"));
>
> [...]
>> --- a/streaming.c
>> +++ b/streaming.c
>> @@ -538,7 +538,7 @@ int stream_blob_to_fd(int fd, unsigned const char *sha1,
>> struct stream_filter *f
>> goto close_and_exit;
>> }
>> if (kept && (lseek(fd, kept - 1, SEEK_CUR) == (off_t) -1 ||
>> - write(fd, "", 1) != 1))
>> + xwrite(fd, "", 1) != 1))
>
> Yeah, if we get EINTR then it's worth retrying.
>
> [...]
>> --- a/transport-helper.c
>> +++ b/transport-helper.c
>> @@ -1129,9 +1129,8 @@ static int udt_do_write(struct unidirectional_transfer
>> *t)
>> return 0; /* Nothing to write. */
>>
>> transfer_debug("%s is writable", t->dest_name);
>> - bytes = write(t->dest, t->buf, t->bufuse);
>> - if (bytes < 0 && errno != EWOULDBLOCK && errno != EAGAIN &&
>> - errno != EINTR) {
>> + bytes = xwrite(t->dest, t->buf, t->bufuse);
>> + if (bytes < 0 && errno != EWOULDBLOCK) {
>
> Here the write is limited by BUFFERSIZE, and returning to the outer
> loop to try another read when the write returns EAGAIN, like the
> original code does, seems philosophically like the right thing to do.
>
> Luckily we don't use O_NONBLOCK anywhere, so the change shouldn't
> matter in practice. So although it doesn't do any good, using xwrite
> here for consistency should be fine.
>
> So my only worry is the (*) above. With that change,
> Reviewed-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnie...@gmail.com>
>
> --
--
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
