bug#36591: 26.2; Term's pager seems broken

[Lars Ingebrigtsen]

Noam Postavsky <npostavs@gmail.com> writes:

>> On the master branch we should clean up the confusing set of if
>> clauses, both in set-process-filter and in connect_network_socket.
>> Perhaps Lars could describe his reasoning for making the change which
>> introduced set_process_filter_masks and what problem it tried to
>> solve.  (Btw, the log message for that change seems to imply that
>> set-process-filter should not have called set_process_filter_masks,
>> something that the change itself disagrees with.  An omission?)
>
> Hmm, true, I didn't pay that close attention to the log message.
> Maybe "we may not have a socket yet" refers to the already existing
> 'if (p->infd >= 0)' check?

Let's see...  this was part of the patch series that allowed for
asynchronous connection setup?

I think Noam is right -- the "we may not have the socket yet" refers to
this bit:

  if (p->infd >= 0)
    set_process_filter_masks (p);

But it does indeed look like I was confused with filter/p->filter and
assumed they were the same.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no