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=-3.1 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM, RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=no 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 E0A36208CD for ; Tue, 15 Aug 2017 19:32:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752330AbdHOTc3 (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Aug 2017 15:32:29 -0400 Received: from mail-qk0-f194.google.com ([209.85.220.194]:33395 "EHLO mail-qk0-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751601AbdHOTc2 (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Aug 2017 15:32:28 -0400 Received: by mail-qk0-f194.google.com with SMTP id d145so1586242qkc.0 for ; Tue, 15 Aug 2017 12:32:28 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=t4cQfNENCooTegjPZq5Hg7k3ED9KcTZVHfSoSWj5ulE=; b=bnHYN9Xh0Q7Q/9/uObPfTee2/lbD5Jwb7m8yWAMM/ptxBe94JLUqmmfzt56NkE3GFB gmbTwupVmunDAbjNyg6MxkJx4bfLrE+gP9aSbtpoUUIaQOOsQ+PYcd4mldjuA8Mr3rGs OPkPueOeBbKa6msiVVd1+ai1ny4e/72o4c4F7PXvqJ1NZS2tbLipK4GpukrbwYCERt2B mAcd3a+a6iXi+YHaDY8Ga+DUJJzALtYAihvRBW9JqFScvBwz6ERAVBmCcwMSlek+DVfu /frKOuiZI7Uq3J+G+Lqm6rVrth12QziKMiSsJh7ykjUaCZPt/QCe5VuOzGVpJZctPtUW XOrQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=t4cQfNENCooTegjPZq5Hg7k3ED9KcTZVHfSoSWj5ulE=; b=dx7/ka1oWVuJbmwPa7OEbq0uH8c7fDDrB30ksTnQThWbCpXFml1AtOrc69u0eRZHJh +cgq88dN9lgJoHkky+txWKAWagEUkHgzlK2MTMnvmljYcJEkuNRmDCOySn8kZ2lBCxzr NwlfEGARpEgEzk6fvvj8FWa5k3oemptyBqiu7TRKIfu/t7Rs1BtIc/UF08TIMg3T1lb0 y1DuzigMX+oQQ4QR7ovcGMuAlEWtaWSS3ctmWkA9+TjRe1e3qD9WsaUAgvPOmk6P6h32 WAfZfFj3IHxzq5scNnfOnULq6VPsfSbB0uwjb0b2rl6FUG+cgAuny4CVSMMluJw1PNLj vCOg== X-Gm-Message-State: AHYfb5h94O5qgfOlgfbcVYFoJbnOm8xjy9g7vQAbrYVcCNRaX6Jxt3gi McZ6/s5oJhTX1fVcW841XxOfjHDW4iRf X-Received: by 10.55.71.76 with SMTP id u73mr40167081qka.25.1502825548007; Tue, 15 Aug 2017 12:32:28 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.55.77.16 with HTTP; Tue, 15 Aug 2017 12:32:27 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20170815173611.2267-1-chriscool@tuxfamily.org> <836F754B-C78C-4D19-8365-875D96B3F115@gmail.com> From: Christian Couder Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 21:32:27 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] sub-process: print the cmd when a capability is unsupported To: Lars Schneider Cc: git , Junio C Hamano , Jeff King , Ben Peart , Jonathan Tan , Christian Couder Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 9:29 PM, Christian Couder wrote: > On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 9:00 PM, Lars Schneider > wrote: >> >>> On 15 Aug 2017, at 19:36, Christian Couder wrote: >>> @@ -184,8 +185,8 @@ static int handshake_capabilities(struct child_process *process, >>> if (supported_capabilities) >>> *supported_capabilities |= capabilities[i].flag; >>> } else { >>> - warning("external filter requested unsupported filter capability '%s'", >>> - p); >>> + warning("subprocess '%s' requested unsupported capability '%s'", >>> + cmd, p); >> >> Wouldn't it be possible to use "process->argv[0]"? >> Shouldn't that be the same as "cmd"? > > Well in sub-process.h there is: > > /* Members should not be accessed directly. */ > struct subprocess_entry { > struct hashmap_entry ent; /* must be the first member! */ > const char *cmd; > struct child_process process; > }; > > so if cmd is always the same as process->argv[0], maybe there is no > need for the cmd member in the first place? In case it is not clear, what I mean is that if we consider that they should always be the same, it could be considered a different patch altogether to just remove the cmd member of this struct.