Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2018 08:55:24 -0800 (PST) From: "Rodney W. Grimes" <freebsd-rwg@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net> To: Eugene Grosbein <eugen@grosbein.net> Cc: Eric van Gyzen <eric@vangyzen.net>, Brooks Davis <brooks@freebsd.org>, Alan Somers <asomers@freebsd.org>, Yuri <yuri@rawbw.com>, Ian Lepore <ian@freebsd.org>, Freebsd hackers list <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Is it considered to be ok to not check the return code of close(2) in base? Message-ID: <201801081655.w08GtO3D022568@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net> In-Reply-To: <5A5399AA.9020309@grosbein.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> 08.01.2018 23:13, Eric van Gyzen wrote: > > > Right, which is the reason such bugs are hard to diagnose. Optionally > > killing the process on close->EBADF would help find buggy code when > > another thread did NOT re-open the file descriptor between the two close > > calls. > > Wouldn't "close(f); assert(errno != EBADF);" be better? Or even #ifdef DEBUG_CLOSE #define close(f) close(f); assert(errno != EBADF); #endif Then the people that want to go chasing these errors can, and the rest of us are untouched. -- Rod Grimes rgrimes@freebsd.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201801081655.w08GtO3D022568>