On Mon, 2025-06-16 at 14:13 -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
[...]
> > +static int config_contains(const char *pat)
>
> int-returning function... but we return do `ret = true;`, that looks
> accidental and sloppy. Let's add a comment that it returns <0 on
> error, 0 for no match, 1 for match and stick to numbers everywhere?
It was actually intentional but ok, I can change that.
> > +{
> > + int n, err, ret = -1;
> > + const char *msg;
> > + char buf[1024];
> > + gzFile config;
> > +
> > + config = open_config();
> > + if (!config)
> > + goto out;
>
> nothing to gzclose if open_config() returns NULL, just return
>
> pw-bot: cr
>
> > +
> > + for (;;) {
> > + if (!gzgets(config, buf, sizeof(buf))) {
> > + msg = gzerror(config, &err);
> > + if (err == Z_ERRNO)
> > + perror("gzgets /proc/config.gz");
> > + else if (err != Z_OK)
> > + fprintf(stderr, "gzgets /proc/config.gz: %s", msg);
> > + goto out;
>
> nit: I'd probably just do
>
> gzclose(config);
> return -EINVAL; (or whatever the error code might be)
I'll make this change just to avoid arguing but don't understand why tbh.
[...]
