svn commit: r252672 - head/sbin/nvmecontrol
jim.harris at gmail.com
Tue Jul 9 21:18:13 UTC 2013
On Sat, Jul 6, 2013 at 7:26 PM, Bruce Evans <brde at 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
More information about the svn-src-head