This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [Bug-readline] [PATCH] readline/histfile.c: Check and retry write() operation in history_truncate_file()
- From: Chen Gang <gang dot chen dot 5i5j at gmail dot com>
- To: chet dot ramey at case dot edu
- Cc: Andreas Schwab <schwab at linux-m68k dot org>, palves at redhat dot com, gdb-patches at sourceware dot org, binutils at sourceware dot org, bug-readline at gnu dot org, amodra at gmail dot com
- Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2014 10:01:19 +0800
- Subject: Re: [Bug-readline] [PATCH] readline/histfile.c: Check and retry write() operation in history_truncate_file()
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <5397C077 dot 1080702 at gmail dot com> <53A1F78A dot 8020508 at case dot edu> <53A23D77 dot 1040905 at gmail dot com> <53A3F78E dot 6020803 at gmail dot com> <53A4AD62 dot 6020408 at case dot edu> <53A4ED1B dot 2060608 at gmail dot com> <53A612EF dot 9070400 at case dot edu>
On 06/22/2014 07:19 AM, Chet Ramey wrote:
> On 6/20/14, 10:25 PM, Chen Gang wrote:
>>> There aren't really any plausible conditions under which write(2) returns
>>> 0 instead of -1 when writing a non-zero number of bytes to a regular file.
>> Hmm... for me, what you said is acceptable. And the function comment need be
>> "Returns 0 on success, errno or -1 on failure"
> history_truncate_file will never return -1.
Hmm... do you mean:
"for regular file, write() never return 0, if parameter 'count' > 0?"
"if write() return 0, can also return 0 to history_truncate_file()?".
>> And since you will work for it next, is it still necessary to send patch v2 for
>> the temporary fix, at present?
> I will take care of making those changes, thanks.
OK, thanks (I need/shall not send patch v2 for it).
Open, share, and attitude like air, water, and life which God blessed