introduce capture_command to avoid deadlocks
Get series with b4
b4 am [email protected]Versions newest first
- v2 Latest7 patches 1 replyIn review
Patches in v2 No applies recorded yet
| # | Subject and files | Size | Replies | Applied |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1/7 | wt-status: don't flush before running "submodule status"wt-status.c | +0 | 0 replies | |
| 2/7 | wt_status: fix signedness mismatch in strbuf_read callwt-status.c | +3 | 0 replies | |
| 3/7 | run-command: introduce capture_command helperrun-command.c run-command.h | +29 | 0 replies | |
| 4/7 | wt-status: use capture_commandwt-status.c | +1 | 0 replies | |
| 5/7 | submodule: use capture_commandsubmodule.c | +1 | 0 replies | |
| 6/7 | trailer: use capture_commandtrailer.c | +5 | 0 replies | |
| 7/7 | run-command: forbid using run_command with piped outputrun-command.c | +6 | 0 replies |
Reviews trailers per patch
No Reviewed-by, Acked-by or Tested-by trailers for v2 yet.
Cover letter [PATCH v2 0/7] introduce capture_command to avoid deadlocks
Quoted 5 lines · Junio C Hamano
Now I read the callers, it does look like this new function better fits in the run-command suite, essentially allowing us to do what we would do with $(cmd) or
cmdin shell and Perl scripts, even though I do not particularly agree with the phrase "layering violation" to call its current placement.
I was on the fence, and you both seem to prefer it in run-command, so here is a re-roll in that direction (no other changes).
[1/7]: wt-status: don't flush before running "submodule status" [2/7]: wt_status: fix signedness mismatch in strbuf_read call [3/7]: run-command: introduce capture_command helper [4/7]: wt-status: use capture_command
[5/7]: submodule: use capture_command
[6/7]: trailer: use capture_command
[7/7]: run-command: forbid using run_command with piped output
-Peff