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

Pedro Alves
2014-10-24T12:35:28Z

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