From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from list by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.71) id 1UjyKS-0005vb-RF for mharc-qemu-trivial@gnu.org; Tue, 04 Jun 2013 16:59:40 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:59860) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UjyKQ-0005sH-Fa for qemu-trivial@nongnu.org; Tue, 04 Jun 2013 16:59:39 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UjyKP-0000hO-MO for qemu-trivial@nongnu.org; Tue, 04 Jun 2013 16:59:38 -0400 Received: from mx4-phx2.redhat.com ([209.132.183.25]:43488) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UjyKN-0000gw-M3; Tue, 04 Jun 2013 16:59:35 -0400 Received: from zmail15.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (zmail15.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.83.17]) by mx4-phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r54KxYkF000880; Tue, 4 Jun 2013 16:59:34 -0400 Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 16:59:34 -0400 (EDT) From: Alon Levy To: Paolo Bonzini Message-ID: <1906731494.14304293.1370379574347.JavaMail.root@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <51AE5249.3060401@redhat.com> References: <1370377419-31788-1-git-send-email-alevy@redhat.com> <1370377419-31788-2-git-send-email-alevy@redhat.com> <51AE5249.3060401@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.5.82.11] X-Mailer: Zimbra 8.0.3_GA_5664 (ZimbraWebClient - FF21 (Linux)/8.0.3_GA_5664) Thread-Topic: use qemu_pipe_non_block Thread-Index: m75nERdEBt9l8kArMZKa7XCpt33cIw== X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x X-Received-From: 209.132.183.25 Cc: qemu-trivial@nongnu.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org Subject: Re: [Qemu-trivial] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/5] use qemu_pipe_non_block X-BeenThere: qemu-trivial@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2013 20:59:39 -0000 > Il 04/06/2013 22:23, Alon Levy ha scritto: > > This fixes six instances of unchecked fcntl return status, spotted by > > Coverity. > > I think we're just assuming that they cannot fail... I don't think we > need the previous patch and this one, unless they help porting stuff to > Windows. This was purely to satisfy coverity, but I thought we would want to check fcntl return status? also, shouldn't we be looping if EINTR? > > Paolo > >