On Fri, 2016-10-07 at 17:52 +1100, Brian May wrote:
> > Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> writes:
>
> > > It looks like this patch does three things
> > >
> > > * It removes "assert(n > 0)".
> > >
> > > * It removes the now unused n parameter from the
> > > manager_invoke_notify_message() function.
> > >
> > > * It removes the return(0) if n==0. This looks like the only relevant part.
> > >
> > > For the first two changes, it looks like the
> > > manager_invoke_notify_message() function and hence the assert was only
> > > introduced in systemd in the following commit, before tag v209. This was
> > > not in the wheezy version, so I don't think these parts are required.
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > Right.
>
>
> This means patch 4 is just the inverse of patch 3, so both become
> redundant.
Oh, I didn't realise that. Let's drop those then.
[...]
> >
> --- systemd-44/debian/patches/no_error_on_zero_len.patch 1970-01-01 10:00:00.000000000 +1000
> +++ systemd-44/debian/patches/no_error_on_zero_len.patch 2016-10-06 18:16:46.000000000 +1100
> @@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
> +--- a/src/manager.c
> ++++ b/src/manager.c
> +@@ -2030,9 +2030,6 @@
> + msghdr.msg_controllen = sizeof(control);
> +
> + if ((n = recvmsg(m->notify_watch.fd, &msghdr, MSG_DONTWAIT)) <= 0) {
> +- if (n >= 0)
> +- return -EIO;
> +-
> + if (errno == EAGAIN || errno == EINTR)
> + break;
> +
[...]
This patch also needs to change the '<= 0' to '< 0', doesn't it?
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings
Every program is either trivial or else contains at least one bug
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part