From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM, RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 726B020A26 for ; Tue, 26 Sep 2017 00:28:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S935611AbdIZA2J (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Sep 2017 20:28:09 -0400 Received: from mail-pf0-f172.google.com ([209.85.192.172]:51104 "EHLO mail-pf0-f172.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S934198AbdIZA2I (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Sep 2017 20:28:08 -0400 Received: by mail-pf0-f172.google.com with SMTP id m63so4674176pfk.7 for ; Mon, 25 Sep 2017 17:28:08 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=MavkN1ej1/VBzTood+r0ekD2E8WeYD5hXCRM38zMaLM=; b=ZyX/qJWcsIRdRka2JMDfggNQ9a2FAZ5v+QZxvmSoH60yRhpHcfv+ZOVzdKp4ST0zts gNDkLiEMyLQ/NT+tsr+T+NLbs14YTgPuWEFCzNRq+z+971NAIxluNLKlo8kYAj5utT9b YuO16C1jIBJAOLS5Tn7hi/k6F/OCRoSlDonLO6J/EYwXBX5PXTUT+cknwKkOAKHtGnmd xKnlWU9uRS8BRW48uDuUpB2wz1Am5IaUnWOkaYMimkhyZ8Dv+73rrfJSarunmeVkLQ55 ovIDAm1yWlAxJv5w329nrILBJ11JX131mFulXukaFxAKj+aZIrN5P1Wv+0/dEb4OY9M4 3W+g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=MavkN1ej1/VBzTood+r0ekD2E8WeYD5hXCRM38zMaLM=; b=pXIxjg2Br0OUSCVLM/SjlNL+LZTy7XDhOE+UAo/NGJ0mYmmFeRgpFPoo/BNML2wsuY 1FdmD/ittrkR7uTLcwQKRJAPLPozVrJwe/W9/HgYBm0Bj1qp+Rz7pwvEGoteD0kuJgM9 ZWeTQeOkNY1rSfPSwsnSwymbfHaOosnWYr53lzTmyHSBBoY74RLqAmjHbiNEJno+JnHe ZQfaOtQN/J8i02Zj/RgQc8//0sG+a4TfOjKEH435Xn21RO6B/7KMeNQZ8wax0wcopSTm jXGIhJWy64LzUWf1qo4UVefnoIuJM0rXGv57geBLBayT+/Afw0vs8v3brdeeceHurcKC MrFg== X-Gm-Message-State: AHPjjUjT+ATp1U6asE8wfb3kD4cMdCBuhumc9uq4UbKgmHEmjlW61fR4 UCFb3FsUkVptbpb2IIzS48k= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QCekJYRtBL9dN78Y6r3jwe9fSpVmdssfgHlULMGHmyikeqsdkdZ3r5V+Gm3K5tbE/SlsvBjYg== X-Received: by 10.159.244.132 with SMTP id y4mr9249318plr.354.1506385687794; Mon, 25 Sep 2017 17:28:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from aiede.mtv.corp.google.com ([2620:0:100e:422:b5cd:5017:828c:d0cb]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id o5sm12905620pfh.67.2017.09.25.17.28.07 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 25 Sep 2017 17:28:07 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 17:28:05 -0700 From: Jonathan Nieder To: Jeff King Cc: git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/7] read_in_full: reset errno before reading Message-ID: <20170926002805.GS27425@aiede.mtv.corp.google.com> References: <20170925232313.hhtqpxuzpzbnbdop@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20170925233316.GI27425@aiede.mtv.corp.google.com> <20170925233732.4lqavl56qwpfjuxy@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20170925234541.l6qcislhfwtnxf5m@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20170925235510.GL27425@aiede.mtv.corp.google.com> <20170926000117.y3solltovyueq3zc@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20170926001354.GN27425@aiede.mtv.corp.google.com> <20170926001724.cxuwsdadjbqqmnig@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20170926002020.GQ27425@aiede.mtv.corp.google.com> <20170926002510.xmusj6fkvb25fm5w@sigill.intra.peff.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170926002510.xmusj6fkvb25fm5w@sigill.intra.peff.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Jeff King wrote: > What do you think of patch 7 in light of this? If the short-read case > gives us a sane errno, should we even bother trying to consistently > handle its error separately? I like the read_exactly_or_die variant because it makes callers more concise, but on the other hand a caller handling the error can write a more meaningful error message with the right amount of context. So I think you're right that it's better to drop patch 7. Thanks, Jonathan