>> free(rw_buf); >> if (srcfd > 0) >> - close(srcfd); >> + err1 = close(srcfd); >> if (dstfd > 0) >> - close(dstfd); >> + err2 = close(dstfd); > > I agree that an error on closing the destination is an error for > copy_file, but is an error on closing the source file an error for > copy_file? We read everything from the source, so errors while closing > the file should not be relevant. I guess it depends on one's interpretation of what "success" means for execution of copy_file(). I personally interpret it as: "the function accomplished what is was supposed to do and all of the operations that had to be done in order to do that completed without any errors", but I can see how that being defined as "the function accomplished it's main purpose with some possible minor failures" could work too. Since I expect a call to close() to not fail for 99% of the time I don't see any harm in checking for errors from both calls, but I don't feel very strongly about the subject so if you want it I can remove the extra check. Andrey _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
