Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 11:06:04 -0800 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: Dag-Erling =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Sm=F8rgrav?= <des@freebsd.org> Cc: src-committers@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r309109 - head/lib/libutil Message-ID: <2600117.GH2pUSAs7N@ralph.baldwin.cx> In-Reply-To: <201611241450.uAOEoLA5079215@repo.freebsd.org> References: <201611241450.uAOEoLA5079215@repo.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thursday, November 24, 2016 02:50:21 PM Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav wrote:= > Author: des > Date: Thu Nov 24 14:50:21 2016 > New Revision: 309109 > URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/309109 >=20 > Log: > Add a warning against modifying this code without understanding it,= and > an example of how not to make it more portable. I've had this lyin= g > around uncommitted since 2009... While I think the sentiment is correct, I would suggest adjusting the c= omment as some folks may not get the sarcasm on first blush. Even though it s= omewhat duplicates the revision log, I think it would be useful to expand the c= omment to list some of the "obvious" improvements to this function that actual= ly break it along with a brief explanation of the breakage each of these c= hanges cause. In particular, the code here doesn't explain why close-on-exec = would be bad, but a comment as I've described would. --=20 John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?2600117.GH2pUSAs7N>