Our xwrite wrapper already deals with a few potential hazards, and
are as such more robust. Prefer it instead of write to get the
robustness benefits everywhere.
Signed-off-by: Erik Faye-Lund kusmab...@gmail.com
---
With this patch, we don't call write directly any more; all calls
goes via the
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);
}
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));
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 8:07 PM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote:
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
Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com writes:
Junio C Hamano wrote:
Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com writes:
Shouldn't this use write_in_full() to avoid a silently truncated result? (*)
Meaning this? If so, I think it makes sense.
[...]
-if (xwrite(fd, out.buf, out.len) 0)
+if
Junio C Hamano wrote:
Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com writes:
Shouldn't this use write_in_full() to avoid a silently truncated result? (*)
Meaning this? If so, I think it makes sense.
[...]
- if (xwrite(fd, out.buf, out.len) 0)
+ if (write_in_full(fd, out.buf, out.len) !=
6 matches
Mail list logo