Hello fellow hackers,
I spotted this small detail this morning and applied this change. It is
always a good thing in my opinion to be able to carve off an
unnecessary local variable.
To be precise, I think this can be considered the first patch of this
year's slcon3 hacking sessions. ;)
With best regards
FRIGN
--
FRIGN
>From 6365fab78c11e8269447cf0cfcbb1aeac618488b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: FRIGN
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2016 09:37:59 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] Use switch for fork()
This saves us one local variable and 2 lines of code, while improving
readability by using the switch-style we are used to from other suckless
projects.
We are allowed to check against -1, as POSIX clearly mandates for the
RETURN VALUE:
"Upon successful completion, fork() shall return 0 to the child process
and shall return the process ID of the child process to the parent
process. Both processes shall continue to execute from the fork()
function. Otherwise, -1 shall be returned to the parent process, no
child process shall be created, and errno shall be set to indicate the
error."
[http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/fork.html]
This way, checking against < 0 was overdoing it and it's sufficient to
compare against -1, justifying the switch statement here.
---
sinit.c | 10 --
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/sinit.c b/sinit.c
index e338f35..93f9925 100644
--- a/sinit.c
+++ b/sinit.c
@@ -74,16 +74,14 @@ sigreboot(void)
static void
spawn(char *const argv[])
{
- pid_t pid;
-
- pid = fork();
- if (pid < 0) {
- perror("fork");
- } else if (pid == 0) {
+ switch (fork()) {
+ case 0:
sigprocmask(SIG_UNBLOCK, &set, NULL);
setsid();
execvp(argv[0], argv);
perror("execvp");
_exit(1);
+ case -1:
+ perror("fork");
}
}
--
2.7.3
