Re: [hackers] [sbase] Revert "ed: remove double free in join()" || Roberto E. Vargas Caballero

2017-01-10 Thread Thomas Mannay
Hello Roberto, The trouble with reverting my commit is that readding the double free completely crashes ed if more than one join is performed. I think this patch (which also reverts back to having no double free) should handle your concern via blocking signal handling until the join is finished.

Re: [hackers] [dwm] [PATCH 2/3] Button passthrough when client is not focused

2017-01-10 Thread Markus Teich
Silvan Jegen wrote: > From what I understand, in case that the client does not have focus > already, with this patch we call XGrabButton twice compared to before the > patch. I assume that corresponds to the advertised functionality. Heyho, Not only twice but multiple times per button mapping and

Re: [hackers] [dwm] [PATCH 2/3] Button passthrough when client is not focused

2017-01-10 Thread Silvan Jegen
Hi Markus >From what I understand, in case that the client does not have focus already, with this patch we call XGrabButton twice compared to before the patch. I assume that corresponds to the advertised functionality. One more comment below. On Sat, Jan 07, 2017 at 05:21:29PM +0100, Markus Teic

Re: [hackers] [dwm] [PATCH 1/3] cleanup

2017-01-10 Thread Silvan Jegen
Hi Markus On Sat, Jan 07, 2017 at 05:21:28PM +0100, Markus Teich wrote: > - unify multi-line expression alignment style. > - unify multi-line function call alignment style. > - simplify client moving on monitor count decrease. > - clarify comment for focusin(). > - remove old confusing comment abo

Re: [hackers] [PATCH] simplify client moving on monitor count decrease

2017-01-10 Thread Silvan Jegen
Hi Markus On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 06:05:33PM +0100, Markus Teich wrote: > --- > dwm.c | 3 +-- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) Looks good to me. I have tested this patch yesterday and today in daily use and haven't found any issues on my 2-monitor setup (yet). Cheers, Silvan

Re: [hackers] [sbase] [PATCH 1/5] Remove st != NULL checks from recursor functions

2017-01-10 Thread Silvan Jegen
Hi Laslo On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 02:59:56PM +0100, Laslo Hunhold wrote: > On Wed, 14 Dec 2016 19:40:02 -0800 > Michael Forney wrote: > > Hey Michael, > > > In the description of 3111908b034c73673a2f079b2b13a88c18379baa, it > > says that the functions must be able to handle st being NULL, but >

Re: [hackers] [sbase] ed: Don't use strlcpy() || Roberto E. Vargas Caballero

2017-01-10 Thread Laslo Hunhold
On Tue, 10 Jan 2017 08:56:46 +0100 (CET) g...@suckless.org wrote: Hey Roberto, > All the buffers related to files have FILENAME_MAX size, so it is > impossible to have any buffer overrun. I consider this way of thinking harmful, because it involves assumptions about the code that are met in

[hackers] [sbase] ed: fix commit 2ccc1e8 || Roberto E. Vargas Caballero

2017-01-10 Thread git
commit 9ab1478f1eb6a9a355d394af3c0cfa69850245fe Author: Roberto E. Vargas Caballero AuthorDate: Tue Jan 10 11:28:58 2017 +0100 Commit: Roberto E. Vargas Caballero CommitDate: Tue Jan 10 11:30:34 2017 +0100 ed: fix commit 2ccc1e8 The patch was wrong because the prototype of

Re: [hackers] [sbase] ed: Don't use strlcpy() || Roberto E. Vargas Caballero

2017-01-10 Thread Hiltjo Posthuma
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 08:56:46AM +0100, g...@suckless.org wrote: > commit b95c8ed79e5d5322dd3c5c386c3acd62105ac116 > Author: Roberto E. Vargas Caballero > AuthorDate: Tue Jan 10 08:46:48 2017 +0100 > Commit: Roberto E. Vargas Caballero > CommitDate: Tue Jan 10 08:49:17 2017 +0100 > >