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 > >