From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mout.kundenserver.de (mout.kundenserver.de [212.227.126.135]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 74DB63858D28 for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2022 15:22:16 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 74DB63858D28 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=cygwin.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=cygwin.com Received: from calimero.vinschen.de ([24.134.7.25]) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (mreue010 [212.227.15.167]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1MkHhB-1mUCxa0f8L-00kiSc for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2022 16:22:15 +0100 Received: by calimero.vinschen.de (Postfix, from userid 500) id 1F2A5A80719; Tue, 18 Jan 2022 16:22:14 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2022 16:22:14 +0100 From: Corinna Vinschen To: cygwin-patches@cygwin.com Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [PATCH 2/5] Cygwin: resolver: Process options forward (not backwards) Message-ID: Reply-To: cygwin-patches@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-patches@cygwin.com References: <20220117180314.29064-1-lavr@ncbi.nlm.nih.gov> <20220117180314.29064-3-lavr@ncbi.nlm.nih.gov> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:6wup1o2NVt7OsDiNq9Rxe9y7H1wQV1wQOs/iIMm/P6ej7spi5KR zrOWgOMY7hqJplp7NA1uwYQbBc9NDner2v/2Ht87afcig17O/IYFuCvV5+SK/Z2dyycLYHw GdG7KfkPpW9Ve1G9cSihBaMr+jREoccBXMTglx9cV5/34hJknhbVEWoGn1aiBtO537USAAK /eu4f+o80EAc97Y4xD0lA== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:BiXR6KHpEmc=:z1ndL+j+WRCng788vt4mY2 COQ2isRl+df187CWdFOQIeS0l7aXtY119WtdRpSmfBTYnrvq6gOayLhXnSHV7lxGRBWDiqBMa 3tYtj7Dznsst2FF56w8y1wrM1pzcCaR7nBkoBV/4r2XEmT8vhvmYKYiMhRsw5DIYqZBIgRQcH nUPoJm98RHc75r0oxXweDfS8PqipISAmqEd+4OlcWbOC1p/SA5+dF7GjbEMCtACOs15qcuE8D JePDPpdt4Y0Nur3QvCcV5uQqY3lAmGh4BkpN4N8+laQyMNHHYr8Ep9lbvQOZ3uuJFoDoIGFY4 59ip81hjSaWVKhd+kdlSHMJ1RkIo6G0cn9tvl4+m6LBFHXZK+F/TBQVBN7lM4ADb0BYkFP4F6 rjqpV4FnkgCS32TCEzJG8IDfB/qpaB0LD0Omd25j9aGnbCQOZP9UqkpThEnUywNkThg3JcPWr aIzd9+2rNb8v2KW0+VhnHU4oGUQO28UK4yi4CJBIgEcBoKFbpHZmrNg1r30rI5rqaZMtkgjCl vo4cqt8rdCTtdnyjGCwCgzSZj7mvPpShZbWlN3iub11O3By6rRIjZmVWaBT0ne3vOTezdyhK3 7bJfucxkvIMQCwCMWMmDfpjznPRXShHzJhHUAd9bh2Ox7LY2T1IDewzcw8f94Pnkq46cgck+p 8AgCIVawlEkEH6hlxptzwOVBfnjmJU3LB4z67EB9ueA47DNyGE7d6NWODlO0nu5X97fHQwd5D pvMEjd1HYi6rw6Nm X-Spam-Status: No, score=-96.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, GOOD_FROM_CORINNA_CYGWIN, KAM_DMARC_NONE, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL, SPF_FAIL, SPF_HELO_NONE, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: cygwin-patches@cygwin.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Cygwin core component patch submission and discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2022 15:22:18 -0000 On Jan 18 13:58, Lavrentiev, Anton (NIH/NLM/NCBI) [C] via Cygwin-patches wrote: > > I pushed patches 1 and 3 to 5. I fixed the consitency typo > > throughout. > > Thanks! (and oops :-) > > > Right now, the debug flag gets set in several places throughout the > > code. Given you set the debug flag above, doesn't that mean several > > code snippets setting the debug flag later in the code can go away? > > No, they can't. The flag can be propagated from "res_init()" from the user > land. When /etc/resolv.conf gets loaded, its "options" can also specify the > debug setting (so it should become active since then), but formerly the code was > using only the init-provided value in "get_resolv()" yet the debug setting from > "options" (parsed by "get_options()") only affected the options themselves, > but not the calling code in "get_resolv()", which kept on using the initial value. > That made the remainder of the file parse to continue "silent" unless "res_init()" > was previously called with RES_DEBUG. > > So that was, again, inconsistent! (see, I can spell it this time around :-) > > Post-"get_options()" assignment is not an additional assignment, it's a refresh > of a possibly changed value (for a local "debug" variable). I think the patch is correct, > and it works, for what I am concerned, -- I checked that and was using it. Thanks for the description. Would you mind to recreate your patch with a matching commit message text explaining the debug flag setting? Thanks, Corinna