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=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham 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 4B04E202A2 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2017 02:02:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753311AbdJUCCH (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Oct 2017 22:02:07 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.71]:57700 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753222AbdJUCCG (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Oct 2017 22:02:06 -0400 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4909B5E7F; Fri, 20 Oct 2017 22:02:05 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=vXEJ5Prr5IRZnRbShaPK9Mwdsh0=; b=SBwmm5 pOTPlZNkukdqR93TeTyByVFo6m2uvqyGIW3sX9JoFhO3l7RWH0cDQDFSoWYqga01 hNDIUD5JdIedH8An7WSdPtzNHEO+yxbT715nLonFP8vnaZBemNwELssOj3DdN9JQ UzLYkB75DDc3TPxMu4oaAKx+Mhk403fOjLfbA= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=R4GlXOcI4iIrqSmHpow/4PN8wG8fS5+A MFQB/tpspd1MxB2u9Ovpf6ty+TNPFnAGdjI+a5jTQIrSu45lArHeJX0iXQqiOOdw FB5aELPdsE2iXqEE+0uNb1vF+QcAkzQ6o7WJZobktbTr/DXHH5GDzX4MGR6ZKiSY ONWPc8KPhZs= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD172B5E7E; Fri, 20 Oct 2017 22:02:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.132.0.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 47919B5E7D; Fri, 20 Oct 2017 22:02:05 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Simon Ruderich Cc: Jeff King , Stefan Beller , "git\@vger.kernel.org" , Johannes Schindelin , Lars Schneider Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] t5615: avoid re-using descriptor 4 References: <20171019210140.64lb52cqtgdh22ew@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20171019210730.sgm4g4tmor2dgjv7@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20171019232337.zfd7occtjboem7f4@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20171020055058.s5dgxyfjnqtlxv4d@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20171020224608.3ataitvdq5r33iih@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20171021001916.bohcqjuxcufxvpam@ruderich.org> Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2017 11:02:04 +0900 In-Reply-To: <20171021001916.bohcqjuxcufxvpam@ruderich.org> (Simon Ruderich's message of "Sat, 21 Oct 2017 02:19:16 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.2.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: D63F1F50-B603-11E7-A836-575F0C78B957-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Simon Ruderich writes: > On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 06:46:08PM -0400, Jeff King wrote: >>> I agree. Maybe just stick with the original patch? >> >> OK. Why don't we live with that for now, then. The only advantage of the >> "999" trickery is that it's less likely to come up again. If it doesn't, >> then we're happy. If it does, then we can always switch then. > > I think switching the 4 to 9 (which you already brought up in > this thread) is a good idea. It makes accidental conflicts less > likely (it's rare to use so many file descriptors) and is easy to > implement. Yeah, I like the simplicity of implementation, and I more like the fact that it is simpler to reason about its limitation.