Le jeudi 04 novembre 2021 à 08:26 +0900, Namjae Jeon a écrit :
> 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?
>
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
> >
> >
