On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 12:31:05PM +0300, Petri Latvala wrote: > > > On 09/05/2017 07:16 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 03:39:49PM +0300, Petri Latvala wrote: > > > When no action is specified on the command line, print the usage help > > > text and exit with failure instead of SIGABRT. Fix some typos on the > > > usage text. > > > > > > Keep the abort() call in places where they can only be reached by > > > expanding the tool and forgetting to handle new parameters, with an > > > error message printed. > > > > > > CC: Ben Widawsky <benjamin.widawsky@xxxxxxxxx> > > > Signed-off-by: Petri Latvala <petri.latvala@xxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > tools/intel_l3_parity.c | 12 +++++++++--- > > > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/tools/intel_l3_parity.c b/tools/intel_l3_parity.c > > > index eb00c50..1a4fae5 100644 > > > --- a/tools/intel_l3_parity.c > > > +++ b/tools/intel_l3_parity.c > > > @@ -172,9 +172,9 @@ static void usage(const char *name) > > > " -l, --list List the current L3 logs\n" > > > " -a, --clear-all Clear all disabled rows\n" > > > " -e, --enable Enable row, bank, subbank (undo -d)\n" > > > - " -d, --disable=<row,bank,subbank> Disable row, bank, subbank (inline arguments are deprecated. Please use -r, -b, -s instead\n" > > > - " -i, --inject [HSW only] Cause hardware to inject a row errors\n" > > > - " -u, --uninject [HSW only] Turn off hardware error injectection (undo -i)\n" > > > + " -d, --disable=<row,bank,subbank> Disable row, bank, subbank (inline arguments are deprecated. Please use -r, -b, -s instead)\n" > > > + " -i, --inject [HSW only] Cause hardware to inject a row error\n" > > > + " -u, --uninject [HSW only] Turn off hardware error injection (undo -i)\n" > > > " -L, --listen Listen for uevent errors\n", > > > name); > > > } > > > @@ -301,6 +301,7 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[]) > > > action = c; > > > break; > > > default: > > > + fprintf(stderr, "Internal error: Unhandled flag %c\n", c); > > > abort(); > > > } > > > } > > > @@ -374,7 +375,12 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[]) > > > break; > > > case 'L': > > > break; > > > + case '0': > > > + /* No action given */ > > > + usage(argv[0]); > > > + exit(EXIT_FAILURE); > > Won't this print usage once per slice? Or am I misreading how the patch > > applies ... > > > It prints the usage and calls exit(), what is the control flow that leads to > printing it multiple times? Ah, that's indeed a bit confusing control flow that usage() exists. Would be cleaner if we don't hide the call somewhere in a loop, but bail out more top-level. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
