cant cancel Issues
Russ Allbery
rra at stanford.edu
Wed Feb 6 05:51:31 UTC 2002
Jeffrey M Vinocur <jeff at litech.org> writes:
> I will test your patch.
> - if (unlink(linkpath) < 0) result = FALSE;
> + (void)unlink(linkpath);
> Do we want instead to do this, though?
> - if (unlink(linkpath) < 0) result = FALSE;
> + if (unlink(linkpath) < 0 && i == 1) result = FALSE;
We shouldn't discard all errors, only the error of unlinking a file that's
already been unlinked, yes? In other words, don't we want instead:
/* Only consider unlink failure an error if it's for a reason other
than the file not existing or if the article is not crossposted. */
if (unlink(linkpath) < 0)
if (errno != ENOENT || i == 1)
result = FALSE;
(And in current, use false instead of FALSE.)
In general, I have a minor preference for putting the body of the if
statement on a second line even when it's short, primarily because it
helps code coverage tools like purecov produce more accurate results.
(That's a change from my previous coding style.)
--
Russ Allbery (rra at stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
More information about the inn-workers
mailing list