On 09/03/2017 05:54 PM, Sami Kerola wrote: > On 3 September 2017 at 20:59, J William Piggott <elseifthen@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 08/30/2017 01:56 PM, J William Piggott wrote: >>> On 08/30/2017 03:40 AM, Karel Zak wrote: >>>> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 12:34:07PM -0400, J William Piggott wrote: >>>>> >>>>> hwaudit_on is only used in main() and hwclock_exit() and >>>>> that is unlikely to ever change. >>>> >>>> Hmm... the goal is minimize global variables to keep code readable. >>>> It's strange to have a control struct and use global variable in the >>>> same time. >>>> >>>>> Remove it from the control struct because it: >>>>> * cleans up an ugly directive in hwclock_exit >>>>> * removes an argument from usage() and hwclock_exit() >>>>> * makes usage() comply with util-linux standards >>>> >>>> I think usage() can call exit(EXIT_SUCCESS) and do not need play any >>>> games with audit at all. >>> >>> True for half of hwclock's functions. Perhaps this special exit >>> handling should only exist when we HAVE_LIBAUDIT? >>> >>> Okay, I'll rethink this and update the pull request. >> >> So it seems that there are more problems with exit and audit handling >> then I first thought. Improving them is going to be more invasive and >> will need to wait for refactoring of main() and manipulate_clock(). >> >> For now I have implemented Karel's idea to mix the use of hwclock_exit() >> and exit(). >> >> Pushed changes to the same branch: >> >> The following changes since commit 58d57ae2d88ef638e3ff07c213b5158334d3f658: >> >> tests: update sfdisk wipe test (2017-09-01 10:42:51 +0200) >> >> are available in the git repository at: >> >> git@xxxxxxxxxx:jwpi/util-linux.git 170825 >> >> for you to fetch changes up to 5b8e46f7e7710e2bb88ff8e763997830c9494df2: >> >> hwclock: close hwaudit_fd unconditionally (2017-09-03 12:34:03 -0400) >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >> J William Piggott (3): >> hwclock: remove sysexits.h >> hwclock: don't always use hwclock_exit >> hwclock: close hwaudit_fd unconditionally >> >> sys-utils/hwclock-rtc.c | 5 ++-- >> sys-utils/hwclock.8.in | 8 ++++++ > > Update to manual telling return zero is success and one is failure feels > unnecessary. I don't think any other manual page does that, and most > users know these values without being explicit. It's the unusual return > codes that we should document so that users has some idea what > could it mean when a command returns 42. * It is one and zero only for POSIX systems. * Most users probably don't know that, programmers do. * Athough it was undocumented hwclock was using sysexits.h so it is worth documenting the change for clarity. * it doesn't hurt anything to document it. > >> sys-utils/hwclock.c | 76 ++++++++++++++++++------------------------------- >> 3 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 52 deletions(-) >> >>> >>>> >>>> On another places we have "ctl" so it's fine fine to keep hwaudit_on >>>> within the control struct. > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe util-linux" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
