2025-03-10 14:25 UTC+0900 ~ nswon <swnam0729@xxxxxxxxx> > missing error code in do_loader() > bpf_object__open_file() failed, but return 0 > This means the command's exit status code was successful, so make sure to return the correct error code. > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/d3b5b4b4-19bb-4619-b4dd-86c958c4a367@stanley.mountain/t/#u > Closes: https://github.com/libbpf/bpftool/issues/156 > Signed-off-by: nswon <swnam0729@xxxxxxxxx> Thanks for this! Others may correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you should sign off with your full name here (although it doesn't strictly have to be a full name, the patch submission docs mention in should be a "known identity" so I'm not sure whether a GitHub handle, for example, is acceptable). > --- > tools/bpf/bpftool/prog.c | 1 + > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > diff --git a/tools/bpf/bpftool/prog.c b/tools/bpf/bpftool/prog.c > index e71be67f1d86..641802e308f4 100644 > --- a/tools/bpf/bpftool/prog.c > +++ b/tools/bpf/bpftool/prog.c > @@ -1928,6 +1928,7 @@ static int do_loader(int argc, char **argv) > > obj = bpf_object__open_file(file, &open_opts); > if (!obj) { > + err = libbpf_get_error(obj); This is the correct way to retrieve the error code, but given that bpftool does nothing with this error code, could we instead simply return -1 to remain consistent with the other locations where we call bpf_object__open_file() in the tool, please? Thanks, Quentin
