Subject: bug#12087: closed (Re: bug#12087: Wrong comment in passfd.c?)

From: [email-masked] (GNU bug Tracking System)
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 12:32:02 +0000

Your bug report

#12087: Wrong comment in passfd.c?

which was filed against the coreutils package, has been closed.

The explanation is attached below, along with your original report.
If you require more details, please reply to [email-masked].

-- 
12087: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=12087
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact [email-masked] with problems

Subject: Re: bug#12087: Wrong comment in passfd.c?
From: Eric Blake <[email-masked]>
To: Jann Horn <[email-masked]>
Cc: bug-gnulib <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 06:24:21 -0600
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>

tag 12087 fixed
thanks

[adding bug-gnulib, as the source of the bug]

On 07/29/2012 02:14 PM, Jann Horn wrote:
> Hello,
> it looks to me like this comment is wrong:
> 
> gnulib/lib/passfd.c:
> 101 /* recvfd receives a file descriptor through the socket.
> 102    The flags are a bitmask, possibly including O_CLOEXEC (defined in <fcntl.h>).
> 103 
> 104    Return 0 on success, or -1 with errno set in case of error.
> 105 */
> 106 int
> 107 recvfd (int sock, int flags)
> 
> It returns the fd, not 0, on success, right?

You are correct.  Thanks for the report; I've pushed a fix to gnulib.

Coreutils will pick it up on the next gnulib update; but as it is of
minor severity, I'm going to close this coreutils bug report now.  Feel
free to provide further comments!

-- 
Eric Blake   [email-masked]    +1-919-301-3266
Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org

Subject: Wrong comment in passfd.c?
From: Jann Horn <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2012 22:14:15 +0200
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>

Hello,
it looks to me like this comment is wrong:

gnulib/lib/passfd.c:
101 /* recvfd receives a file descriptor through the socket.
102    The flags are a bitmask, possibly including O_CLOEXEC (defined in <fcntl.h>).
103 
104    Return 0 on success, or -1 with errno set in case of error.
105 */
106 int
107 recvfd (int sock, int flags)

It returns the fd, not 0, on success, right?

Jann