Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 16:34:28 -0400 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: Pawel Jakub Dawidek <pjd@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-current Current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: pidfile_open incorrectly returns EAGAIN when pidfile is locked Message-ID: <201303141634.28269.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20130314202101.GA1446@garage.freebsd.pl> References: <513F8D20.2050707@erdgeist.org> <455D2A2E-97FE-42EF-A371-B7D7A9A0E14C@mac.com> <20130314202101.GA1446@garage.freebsd.pl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thursday, March 14, 2013 4:21:02 pm Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote: > On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 10:11:07AM -0700, Chuck Swiger wrote: > > Hi-- > > > > On Mar 14, 2013, at 9:50 AM, John Baldwin wrote: > > > On Thursday, March 14, 2013 12:29:58 pm Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote: > > > > [ ... ] > > >> Heh, I did consider that as well, but here you check errno twice, > > >> instead of once. Guys, is there anything wrong with the patch I > > >> proposed? > > > > > > I'm sure the compiler can work that out just fine and it should do whatever > > > is most readable to the programmer. I don't care either way. > > > > Strong +1. Having the code be correct and readable is much more important > > then trying to hand-optimize a single-digit # of integer compares in > > startup code that usually runs ~once per process. > > Well, I think my version is more obvious, just the diff is larger. > Anyway, I think enough has been said already about this crucial change:) Yours is fine, commit it already. -- John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201303141634.28269.jhb>