Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2013 14:18:11 -0700 From: Jim Harris <jim.harris@gmail.com> To: Bruce Evans <brde@optusnet.com.au> Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, Pawel Jakub Dawidek <pjd@freebsd.org>, Jilles Tjoelker <jilles@stack.nl> Subject: Re: svn commit: r252672 - head/sbin/nvmecontrol Message-ID: <CAJP=Hc_y7vHsRooDTQ=EZ2B2JtKtctpbFdZs=O_mObAJPgVdBA@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20130707114237.L897@besplex.bde.org> References: <201307040026.r640QOCd079203@svn.freebsd.org> <20130704105843.B982@besplex.bde.org> <20130706184249.GD25842@garage.freebsd.pl> <20130706195108.GA34684@stack.nl> <20130707114237.L897@besplex.bde.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Jul 6, 2013 at 7:26 PM, Bruce Evans <brde@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > On Sat, 6 Jul 2013, Jilles Tjoelker wrote: > > On Sat, Jul 06, 2013 at 08:42:49PM +0200, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Jul 04, 2013 at 11:44:28AM +1000, Bruce Evans wrote: >>> >>>> Many style bugs are visible in this patch: >>>> >>> [...] >>> >>>> - sysexits.h is used >>>> >>> [...] >>> >> >> Bruce, until sysexits(3) doesn't explicitly say it shouldn't be used, >>> please stop calling this a bug, because you are just confusing people. >>> At this point sysexits(3) actually even suggests it is blessed by >>> style(9). This is how it starts: >>> >> >> According to style(9), it is not a good practice to call exit(3) >>> with arbitrary values to indicate a failure condition when >>> ending a program. Instead, the pre-defined exit codes from >>> sysexits should be used, so the caller of the process can get a >>> rough estimation about the failure class without looking up the >>> source code. >>> >> > This is just another bug in sysexits(3). This is not according to > style(9), since style(9) was fixed to not say that after I complained > previously :-). It has never been normal practice to use sysexits(3), > but someone who likes it added recommendations to use it to style(9) when > they added the man pages for sysexits(3). Before that, it was > so rarely used that it had no man page. > To add to the areas of confusion already stated in this thread, err(3) explicitly recommends using sysexits(3) and uses it in all of the examples. I decided to use 0/1 instead of sysexits since it seems most appropriate based on the discussion here and other examples in sbin. I incorporated these changes as well as addressing some of Bruce's other feedback in r253109. Thanks, -Jim
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAJP=Hc_y7vHsRooDTQ=EZ2B2JtKtctpbFdZs=O_mObAJPgVdBA>