Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 16:11:40 +0200 From: =?utf-8?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=C3=B8rgrav?= <des@des.no> To: Pawel Jakub Dawidek <pjd@FreeBSD.org> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: incorrect use of pidfile(3) Message-ID: <86mxd59e1v.fsf@ds4.des.no> In-Reply-To: <20111013134841.GF1667@garage.freebsd.pl> (Pawel Jakub Dawidek's message of "Thu, 13 Oct 2011 15:48:42 %2B0200") References: <86pqi1b1qp.fsf@ds4.des.no> <864nzdaw7b.fsf@ds4.des.no> <20111013134841.GF1667@garage.freebsd.pl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Pawel Jakub Dawidek <pjd@FreeBSD.org> writes: > I'm still in opinion that EWOULDBLOCK and EAGAIN (which is the same > value on FreeBSD) should be converted to EEXIST on pidfile_open() > return. The historical (and documented) behavior is to return EAGAIN. > Also if we now have for loop, why not to put count in there? Because if we do, there will be a nanosleep after the last pidfile_read() attempt. We need to break the loop after pidfile_read() failed but before nanosleep(). > I'm not very happy about touching pidptr in case of error other than > EEXIST. This is not documented, but a bit unexpected anyway. Well, it was your idea, I just moved it to before the loop :) DES --=20 Dag-Erling Sm=C3=B8rgrav - des@des.no
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?86mxd59e1v.fsf>