On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 03:29:39PM +0300, Vitaly Chikunov wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 07:57:10AM -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> > On Sat, 2019-07-27 at 06:19 +0300, Vitaly Chikunov wrote:
> > > + if (err < 0)
> > > + err = 125;
> > > }
> > >
> > > if (eng) {
> >
> > Agreed we need to return better errors, but instead of always
> > returning 125, would it be better to return the first errno, if err is
> > -1?
>
> 125 will be not always but only to avoid returning -1 (or any negative).
>
> There is no practice to exit with errno, AFAIK. Plus, errno we have at
> the end (and which is reported to user) frequently is bogus and that
> should be fixed. (I may do this later maybe, don't know how much work
> that would require).
>
> We also wish to reserve some exit code as hard error for tests.
I meant 'we also may wish'... This needs to be thought over.
