Thank you, I don't think of a devices scan. After all, I wonder why. Return codes must be coherent so that we can know good from no-good by them. In this spec, it's very hard to make shell scripts with btrfsctl. If there isn't good reason, we need to fix it, I think.
(2009/12/25 18:25), Goffredo Baroncelli wrote: > On Friday 25 December 2009, TARUISI Hiroaki wrote: >> I also want to know why this conversion is needed. >> This might be a typo, I think. >> >> Could someone tell us why? >> Can we fix this conversion? Or shouldn't we fix it >> considering back-compatibility? >> > > It is even worse: the result code returned by btrfsctl is not coherent. > btrfsctl returns always 1 except: > - after a devices scan (in this case the result is _always_ 0) > - if the ioctl returns a value greater than 0 > > In other all cases (error in the command line, the device btrfs-control > doesn't exists, error in opening a file) the return code is 1. > > That doesn't permit to differentiate an error from a good return. > > BR > Goffredo > > >> Regards, >> taruisi >> >> (2009/11/11 15:16), Gong, Zhipeng wrote: >>> We'd like to use btrfsctl in a shell script, however, btrfsctl exit with 1 > even if the operation is successful, which is opposite to the usual shell > command convention. >>> Why btrfsctl add this conversion in the end? >>> if (ret) >>> exit(0); >>> else >>> exit(1); >>> >>> Thanks >>> Zhipeng >>> -- >>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in >>> the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org >>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >> >> -- >> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in >> the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org >> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >> > > -- taruisi -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
