Review Request 125628: KTempDir: Make sense out of s_umask initialization

[Albert Astals Cid]

-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/125628/#review86874
-----------------------------------------------------------



src/kdecore/ktempdir.cpp 
<https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/125628/#comment59752>

    As far as i see this umask call restores the umask to the value it was, if you remove it we're changing the umask for the process that doesn't seem to be what we want (i agree we can remove the return)


- Albert Astals Cid


On oct. 13, 2015, 8:52 p.m., Aleix Pol Gonzalez wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/125628/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated oct. 13, 2015, 8:52 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for KDE Frameworks.
> 
> 
> Repository: kdelibs4support
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Since my Qt rebuild from today, I started having crashes when starting some Qt processes (namely kcminit and another I can't remember). Both KCrash backtraces pointed to this code.
> 
> I don't know why it didn't crash before, but the code doesn't make much sense to me. This patch tailors kStoreUmask to what it is requested to do. I guess this code was refactored and the return is an ancient, unfortunate leftover.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/kdecore/ktempdir.cpp 1240ac7 
> 
> Diff: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/125628/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> Tests still pass, my system starts reliably.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Aleix Pol Gonzalez
> 
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-frameworks-devel/attachments/20151014/6d0dce25/attachment.html>