Makes sense. Made some changes now.
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 6:06 PM, Lennart Poettering <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, 09.03.15 10:00, Tom Gundersen ([email protected]) wrote: > >> +static void event_queue_update(void) { >> + if (!udev_list_node_is_empty(&event_list)) { >> + int fd; >> + >> + fd = open("/run/udev/queue", >> O_WRONLY|O_CREAT|O_CLOEXEC|O_TRUNC|O_NOFOLLOW, 0444); >> + if (fd >= 0) >> + close(fd); > > Isn't this a candidate for touch() or touch_file()? > >> + } else >> + unlink("/run/udev/queue"); >> +} > > Not that it would matter much, but I think we should generally prefix > syscalls whose return code we ignore knowingly with a (void) cast, so > that Coverity doesn't ever get the idea we'd ignore the return value > by accident... > > Lennart > > -- > Lennart Poettering, Red Hat > _______________________________________________ > systemd-devel mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
