Message103668
Antoine: I believe I have everything you mentioned addressed with the new patch. That was an awesome review, thank you so much.
The only things I didn't do were parts of the last two items you bring up:
If PyTuple_New(0) fails, bail out.
If syslog_openlog fails, bail out.
syslog(3) can continue even if the openlog() fails. It won't have the expected "ident" string, but it *WILL* log.
I believe this is the desired behavior.
NOTE: I puled the code out that does all the sys.argv handling, which I think made that whole section of code much easier to read, particularly with the new changes. The down side is that the code to be reviewed is quite different now.
I also found a leak in the call to syslog_openlog() where I wasn't DECREFing the return.
Can you please review these changes? |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2010-04-20 04:26:10 | jafo | set | recipients:
+ jafo, pitrou, eric.smith |
2010-04-20 04:26:09 | jafo | set | messageid: <1271737565.16.0.219151301863.issue8451@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
2010-04-20 04:25:55 | jafo | link | issue8451 messages |
2010-04-20 04:25:54 | jafo | create | |
|