2021-11-04 0:10 GMT+09:00, Guillaume Castagnino <casta@xxxxxxxxxx>:
> 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@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> 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
>
>
