Subject: bug#36591: 26.2; Term's pager seems broken

From: Noam Postavsky <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 09:01:56 -0400

Lars Ingebrigtsen <[email-masked]> writes:

> the "we may not have the socket yet" refers to this bit:
>
>   if (p->infd >= 0)
>     set_process_filter_masks (p);
>
> But it does indeed look like I was confused with filter/p->filter and
> assumed they were the same.

Do you think the reversed check in set_process_filter_masks could cause
bugs for sockets too then?