| Message ID | 20211103151018.172802-1-casta@xwing.info (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | ksmbd-tools: Standardize exit codes | expand |
2021-11-04 0:10 GMT+09:00, Guillaume Castagnino <casta@xwing.info>: > In case of success, EXIT_SUCCESS must be returned by the control binary > This standard behaviour is expected for example for the unit file > > Signed-off-by: Guillaume Castagnino <casta@xwing.info> > --- > control/control.c | 8 ++++---- > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/control/control.c b/control/control.c > index 5b86355..5ff2780 100644 > --- a/control/control.c > +++ b/control/control.c > @@ -43,7 +43,7 @@ static int ksmbd_control_shutdown(void) > > ret = write(fd, "hard", 4); > close(fd); > - return ret; > + return ret != -1 ? EXIT_SUCCESS : EXIT_FAILURE; Shouldn't we also return such a return for open() failures? > } > > static int ksmbd_control_show_version(void) > @@ -61,7 +61,7 @@ static int ksmbd_control_show_version(void) > close(fd); > if (ret != -1) > pr_info("ksmbd version : %s\n", ver); > - return ret; > + return ret != -1 ? EXIT_SUCCESS : EXIT_FAILURE; Ditto. > } > > static int ksmbd_control_debug(char *comp) > @@ -85,7 +85,7 @@ static int ksmbd_control_debug(char *comp) > pr_info("%s\n", buf); > out: > close(fd); > - return ret; > + return ret != -1 ? EXIT_SUCCESS : EXIT_FAILURE; Ditto. > } > > int main(int argc, char *argv[]) > @@ -104,7 +104,7 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[]) > while ((c = getopt(argc, argv, "sd:cVh")) != EOF) > switch (c) { > case 's': > - ksmbd_control_shutdown(); > + ret = ksmbd_control_shutdown(); > break; > case 'd': > ret = ksmbd_control_debug(optarg); > -- > 2.33.1 > >
Le jeudi 04 novembre 2021 à 08:26 +0900, Namjae Jeon a écrit : > 2021-11-04 0:10 GMT+09:00, Guillaume Castagnino <casta@xwing.info>: > > In case of success, EXIT_SUCCESS must be returned by the control > > binary > > This standard behaviour is expected for example for the unit file > > > > Signed-off-by: Guillaume Castagnino <casta@xwing.info> > > --- > > control/control.c | 8 ++++---- > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/control/control.c b/control/control.c > > index 5b86355..5ff2780 100644 > > --- a/control/control.c > > +++ b/control/control.c > > @@ -43,7 +43,7 @@ static int ksmbd_control_shutdown(void) > > > > ret = write(fd, "hard", 4); > > close(fd); > > - return ret; > > + return ret != -1 ? EXIT_SUCCESS : EXIT_FAILURE; > Shouldn't we also return such a return for open() failures? > In case of open error, it already returns something != 0 (-1) in every cases. So for me it’s less an an issue. But it would probably be better if it’s EXIT_FAILURE indeed. I will submit a new patch Regards, > > } > > > > static int ksmbd_control_show_version(void) > > @@ -61,7 +61,7 @@ static int ksmbd_control_show_version(void) > > close(fd); > > if (ret != -1) > > pr_info("ksmbd version : %s\n", ver); > > - return ret; > > + return ret != -1 ? EXIT_SUCCESS : EXIT_FAILURE; > Ditto. > > } > > > > static int ksmbd_control_debug(char *comp) > > @@ -85,7 +85,7 @@ static int ksmbd_control_debug(char *comp) > > pr_info("%s\n", buf); > > out: > > close(fd); > > - return ret; > > + return ret != -1 ? EXIT_SUCCESS : EXIT_FAILURE; > Ditto. > > } > > > > int main(int argc, char *argv[]) > > @@ -104,7 +104,7 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[]) > > while ((c = getopt(argc, argv, "sd:cVh")) != EOF) > > switch (c) { > > case 's': > > - ksmbd_control_shutdown(); > > + ret = ksmbd_control_shutdown(); > > break; > > case 'd': > > ret = ksmbd_control_debug(optarg); > > -- > > 2.33.1 > > > >
diff --git a/control/control.c b/control/control.c index 5b86355..5ff2780 100644 --- a/control/control.c +++ b/control/control.c @@ -43,7 +43,7 @@ static int ksmbd_control_shutdown(void) ret = write(fd, "hard", 4); close(fd); - return ret; + return ret != -1 ? EXIT_SUCCESS : EXIT_FAILURE; } static int ksmbd_control_show_version(void) @@ -61,7 +61,7 @@ static int ksmbd_control_show_version(void) close(fd); if (ret != -1) pr_info("ksmbd version : %s\n", ver); - return ret; + return ret != -1 ? EXIT_SUCCESS : EXIT_FAILURE; } static int ksmbd_control_debug(char *comp) @@ -85,7 +85,7 @@ static int ksmbd_control_debug(char *comp) pr_info("%s\n", buf); out: close(fd); - return ret; + return ret != -1 ? EXIT_SUCCESS : EXIT_FAILURE; } int main(int argc, char *argv[]) @@ -104,7 +104,7 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[]) while ((c = getopt(argc, argv, "sd:cVh")) != EOF) switch (c) { case 's': - ksmbd_control_shutdown(); + ret = ksmbd_control_shutdown(); break; case 'd': ret = ksmbd_control_debug(optarg);
In case of success, EXIT_SUCCESS must be returned by the control binary This standard behaviour is expected for example for the unit file Signed-off-by: Guillaume Castagnino <casta@xwing.info> --- control/control.c | 8 ++++---- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)