Hi Jan -
Thank you for confirming this and for doing the research. I'll file one.
ginnie
On 08/27/09 06:11, Jan Damborsky wrote:
> Hi Ginnie,
>
>
> 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.
>
> Comparing definitions above with legacy code, they were directly taken
> from
> old spmi libraries - I have found that particularly those you have
> mentioned
> were pulled from spmicommon_api.h. Looking at the code, these error codes
> are being returned (e.g. by td_mount_and_add_swap_from_vfstab()), but
> are not
> processed anywhere. I agree this should be cleaned up and consolidated
> with
> rest of the code. Please feel free to file bug for this.
>
> Thank you for pointing this out,
> Jan
>
--
Ginnie
