From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sender4-pp-f112.zoho.com (sender4-pp-f112.zoho.com [136.143.188.112]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C1E4C199237 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 2025 12:59:45 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=pass smtp.client-ip=136.143.188.112 ARC-Seal:i=2; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1759755587; cv=pass; b=rgbp9nLHLt9TtNnXXXHQeZOKwN2Nz9cgD3oR8vdAORy8bXYFGEw4ydBAZEC9FH7Lg7CeJqLUlWbAHfGJyk+vJeVCetleHxlPTbRx11wi7GyXCLMovbx5ibw1vYy1Mil9zKpA051Je9YDi14rgemBj8RrALJnKTYJvE/ekRwZ7oo= ARC-Message-Signature:i=2; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1759755587; c=relaxed/simple; bh=/37wwPKig3XI0NGY4jGY2iL054l+fyq+rVdyqViHqIc=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=Jb4K7LjZIpxbrjqRi8pnmlRHMWJITNy7C3NbFjjY/Gu0iH8AO/r7saG829Me/30uZUtPM3LiMce+iF877ImVsw3dBAiJux9tbWc60cf6E7jLFmlPr/H1B6Uf7/D13j9wRRM2NDAyF0IfAE3S9e0oiy0Zw23O4KnH6duMVpDhpxo= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=2; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=collabora.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=collabora.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=collabora.com header.i=adrian.ratiu@collabora.com header.b=bMQXn2jP; arc=pass smtp.client-ip=136.143.188.112 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=collabora.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=collabora.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=collabora.com header.i=adrian.ratiu@collabora.com header.b="bMQXn2jP" ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1759755573; cv=none; d=zohomail.com; s=zohoarc; b=RJLtgUGHCLVpWy/JRaNjdMv7z0h1/eups70kvldhCKC1OVnXPRJ35NDyxHOxHuModHxfD5jac1Iw0bjeqiT5m1zfjbHK3fGXwQ61CW19wDafE5bCAewEi3CetIWa5a2gUqxHuZoKJTPjW1y2cOgzv9ufR6DM6WSjKtpSgeHEur8= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=zohomail.com; s=zohoarc; t=1759755573; h=Content-Type:Cc:Cc:Date:Date:From:From:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Message-ID:References:Subject:Subject:To:To:Message-Id:Reply-To; bh=RDhk6OpmwduBoMXKF/oOhnaSasXdrfyvkoMvkCCG5eM=; b=M0EsY/nqzJrRk2qOf55NcoPTVM9WnSo38tqS9/95tylrQgDex2Dxwu4M707Lr85/QzXsK5vw731Co/qEOjrPw/VSfCSeFgc12Qs18qXBQwF5v5tvmQ+GxD2BFebjL8cmGqhRUEa5EZ3XgOylKfg+eQ37GK5UVWcc4lKmgCYM6Nk= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.zohomail.com; dkim=pass header.i=collabora.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=adrian.ratiu@collabora.com; dmarc=pass header.from= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1759755573; s=zohomail; d=collabora.com; i=adrian.ratiu@collabora.com; h=From:From:To:To:Cc:Cc:Subject:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Message-Id:Reply-To; bh=RDhk6OpmwduBoMXKF/oOhnaSasXdrfyvkoMvkCCG5eM=; b=bMQXn2jPTtOAkavgs+ieFG1TiJub1j63NTaPA9w9GLJCxg5jDx9FeYiZ+qZ+4fVq NY00XB3BgnFUyFutNdn0QnYROKeGsjBotLj7q47j8Dqz+LyOPr2ZyR7T7RJwTqqbrVd 7Hu9vUL7/S4pmGLU6RmuOlFJg1LIFOPyU0eLp9AE= Received: by mx.zohomail.com with SMTPS id 1759755568777962.398220190538; Mon, 6 Oct 2025 05:59:28 -0700 (PDT) From: Adrian Ratiu To: Patrick Steinhardt Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Emily Shaffer , Rodrigo Damazio Bovendorp , Junio C Hamano , Josh Steadmon , =?utf-8?B?w4Z2?= =?utf-8?B?YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/10] run-command: add stdin callback for parallelization In-Reply-To: References: <20250925125352.1728840-1-adrian.ratiu@collabora.com> <20250925125352.1728840-2-adrian.ratiu@collabora.com> Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2025 15:59:24 +0300 Message-ID: <87v7ks424z.fsf@collabora.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed X-ZohoMailClient: External Hi Patrick and thanks for review! I'll fix in v2 all the issues you pointed out. On Thu, 02 Oct 2025, Patrick Steinhardt wrote: >> + * child input is provided via path_to_stdin when >> the feed_pipe cb is + * missing, so we just >> signal an EOF. + */ + if >> (!opts->feed_pipe) { + close(proc->in); + >> proc->in = 0; > > Hm. It's curious that we use a valid file descriptor > here. Shouldn't we rather use `-1`? Otherwise I could see that > we might try to close this seemingly valid file descriptor at a > later point in time. > I actually asked myself this while preparing the patches, since -1 is a better fit. I only left = 0 for historical reasons, to not modify these patches too much. :) However I do 100% agree with both you and Junio that -1 should be used here. Will do in v2.