Virginia Wray wrote: > Hi Dave - > > I reworked this function as a boolean. I agree with you. It makes more > sense to do it this way. > In doing this, I also found that the return values from > td_mount_and_add_swap (in the td_mountall.c file) > are only checked for a 0 or non-zero value, so I changed them all to -1 > if they fail. It looks more symmetrical. > The different ERR_ return values in lib_td.h need to be evaluated to see > if they are necessary. > The numbering seems random. I think they may be some legacy code. They > are: > > #define ERR_OPENING_VFSTAB 46 > #define ERR_ADD_SWAP 47 > #define ERR_MOUNT_FAIL 48 > #define ERR_MUST_MANUAL_FSCK 49 > #define ERR_FSCK_FAILURE 50 > #define ERR_DELETE_SWAP 52 > #define ERR_UMOUNT_FAIL 53 > #define ERR_ZONE_MOUNT_FAIL 65 > > I thought I would file a bug on the need to evaluate and possibly clean > them up. > > Here is another webrev. Thanks....feedback from others is also welcome. > http://cr.opensolaris.org/~ginnie/4279/ > > CR: > http://defect.opensolaris.org/bz/show_bug.cgi?id=4279 >
Liking it better. Just nits: td_mg.c 1414: When you're using boolean_t returns, it's appropriate, and preferred, to just use the ! operator, i.e. "if (!td_is_fstyp(...))" td_mountall.c, 182, 186: by contrast, when you're *not* calling a function that returns boolean_t, it's inappropriate to not check against a value; these should be "if (... != 0)" (I know, it was wrong before you got here, but you touched it ;-) Dave
