Re: [PATCH 02/16 v2] Refactor follow-fork message printing

Breazeal, Don
2014-10-24T18:45:58Z

On 10/24/2014 5:35 AM, Pedro Alves wrote:
> On 10/23/2014 12:46 AM, Breazeal, Don wrote:
>> On 10/15/2014 9:08 AM, Pedro Alves wrote:
>>>> On 09/26/2014 09:14 PM, Breazeal, Don wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/26/2014 12:52 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 08/21/2014 01:29 AM, Don Breazeal wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> This patch refactors the code that prints messages related to follow-fork
>> ---snip---
>>
>>>> Sorry, I still don't think you're new patch (sent as follow up) is
>>>> an improvement... Having to explain the "Hardcoded 1's" in a
>>>> comment is a red sign to me. :-/
>> Fair enough.
>>
>>>>
>>>> Could you do a patch that just adds the missing output, and fixes
>>>> fork/vfork without moving the printing code to a separate function?
>>>> For the fork vs vfork issue, doing ' is_vfork ? "vfork" : "fork" ' is
>>>> fine.
>> Thanks for clarifying the i18n issues for me. The revised patch is
>> included below, with an updated commit message as well. Is this version OK?
>
> Yes, thanks!
>
> Pedro Alves
>
Thanks, this is pushed in.
--Don