From: Matt Armstrong <matt@rfc20.org>
To: Mike Kupfer <mkupfer@alum.berkeley.edu>
Cc: eggert@cs.ucla.edu, 46397@debbugs.gnu.org, craven@gmx.net,
wohler@newt.com
Subject: bug#46397: 27.1; Cannot delete buffer pointing to a file in a path that includes a file
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2021 17:42:38 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <m21rd8zxm9.fsf@matts-mbp-2016.lan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <16051.1613951017@alto>
Mike Kupfer <mkupfer@alum.berkeley.edu> writes:
> (Adding Bill Wohler, who has a better grasp than I about why MH-E does
> some things.)
>
> Matt Armstrong wrote:
>
>> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
>>
>> > I think we should audit all the callers of unlock_buffer and
>> > unlock_file, and see if signaling an error there is really the best
>> > alternative.
> [...]
>> * lisp/mh-e/mh-show.el (mh-clean-msg-header, mh-unvisit-file):
>> hard to say, very old code...
>> * lisp/mh-e/mh-comp.el (mh-read-draft): ditto.
>
> I'm not sure I completely understanding the logic behind those calls to
> unlock-buffer, but I'll take a stab at it.
[...]
Thanks for those analysis Mike. They make sense to me.
> But to Eli's question, I think a signal is fine for MH-E if the
> lockfile can't be removed for some reason. An uncaught signal could
> leave the current buffer in an odd state, but the user can simply kill
> the buffer and retry whatever operation she had attempted.
Yes, and this bug is at least in part about the behavior of
`kill-buffer' when faced with the same issue. That and `kill-emacs'.
> Or if the buffer has something that is worth saving, the user can
> attempt to save the buffer somewhere, perhaps a different filesystem
> (e.g., if the original filesystem went read-only due to the OS
> detecting a problem).
I think the "buffer has something worth saving" case is not a concern.
The calls to `unlock-buffer' all occur after the buffer contents have
been saved, or otherwise marked as unmodified, or, in the case of
`kill-buffer', after the user has chosen to not save a modified buffer.
> I don't understand the proposal for unlock-buffer (or something under
> it) to prompt the user. IIUC, the proposal is for a prompt like
>
>> /tmp/x/y lock is invalid; assume unlocked? (yes or no)
>
> I assume that if the user responds with "yes", unlock-buffer returns
> and the caller is none the wiser. If the user responds with "no",
> what happens?
>
> mike
I think under the current idea, in the case of `kill-buffer', answering
"no" from the prompt the buffer un-killed. I think the technical
mechanism would be to either re-signal the underlying 'file-error or
signal a new 'unlock-error that contains similar information.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-02-22 1:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 55+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-02-09 9:47 bug#46397: 27.1; Cannot delete buffer pointing to a file in a path that includes a file Peter
2021-02-09 23:47 ` Matt Armstrong
2021-02-10 0:23 ` Matt Armstrong
2021-02-10 15:05 ` Eli Zaretskii
2021-02-10 19:23 ` Paul Eggert
2021-02-10 19:45 ` Eli Zaretskii
2021-02-10 22:39 ` Matt Armstrong
2021-02-12 7:43 ` Eli Zaretskii
2021-02-12 9:36 ` Paul Eggert
2021-02-12 11:33 ` Eli Zaretskii
2021-02-12 23:59 ` Matt Armstrong
2021-02-13 8:07 ` Eli Zaretskii
2021-02-11 22:14 ` Matt Armstrong
2021-02-12 2:20 ` Paul Eggert
2021-02-12 7:15 ` Eli Zaretskii
2021-02-13 1:15 ` Matt Armstrong
2021-02-13 1:26 ` Paul Eggert
2021-02-13 8:21 ` Eli Zaretskii
2021-02-13 8:28 ` Eli Zaretskii
2021-02-14 0:49 ` Matt Armstrong
2021-02-14 19:22 ` Eli Zaretskii
2021-02-14 22:16 ` Matt Armstrong
2021-02-15 15:09 ` Eli Zaretskii
2021-02-16 0:49 ` Matt Armstrong
2021-02-16 1:55 ` Paul Eggert
2021-02-16 15:06 ` Eli Zaretskii
2021-02-16 11:53 ` Lars Ingebrigtsen
2021-02-22 19:24 ` bug#46397: [PATCH] " Matt Armstrong
2021-02-19 19:10 ` Matt Armstrong
2021-02-19 19:23 ` Eli Zaretskii
2021-02-19 21:46 ` Matt Armstrong
2021-02-20 9:09 ` Eli Zaretskii
2021-02-21 0:36 ` Matt Armstrong
2021-02-21 23:43 ` Mike Kupfer
2021-02-22 1:42 ` Matt Armstrong [this message]
2021-03-14 18:03 ` Bill Wohler
2021-03-17 23:36 ` Matt Armstrong
2021-02-24 17:37 ` Matt Armstrong
2021-02-24 18:50 ` Eli Zaretskii
2021-03-01 16:59 ` Eli Zaretskii
2021-03-05 22:19 ` Matt Armstrong
2021-03-06 9:36 ` Eli Zaretskii
2021-03-06 23:39 ` Matt Armstrong
2021-03-07 2:50 ` Paul Eggert
2021-03-07 5:57 ` Matt Armstrong
2021-02-19 19:45 ` Paul Eggert
2021-02-19 21:52 ` Matt Armstrong
2021-03-08 2:18 ` Matt Armstrong
2021-03-11 14:34 ` Eli Zaretskii
2021-03-17 23:49 ` Matt Armstrong
2021-03-17 23:51 ` Matt Armstrong
2021-03-20 10:43 ` Eli Zaretskii
2021-03-22 1:43 ` Matt Armstrong
2021-03-27 9:20 ` Eli Zaretskii
2021-02-10 0:26 ` Matt Armstrong
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=m21rd8zxm9.fsf@matts-mbp-2016.lan \
--to=matt@rfc20.org \
--cc=46397@debbugs.gnu.org \
--cc=craven@gmx.net \
--cc=eggert@cs.ucla.edu \
--cc=mkupfer@alum.berkeley.edu \
--cc=wohler@newt.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).