On Tue, Jan 13, 2026 at 03:48:11PM +0100, Markus Elfring wrote:
> …
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/net/tfo.c
> > @@ -82,8 +82,10 @@ static void run_server(void)
> …
> > if (read(connfd, buf, 64) < 0)
> > - perror("read()");
> > - fprintf(outfile, "%d\n", opt);
> > + error(1, errno, "read()");
> > +
> > + if (fprintf(outfile, "%d\n", opt) < 0)
> > + error(1, errno, "fprintf()");
> >
> > fclose(outfile);
> > close(connfd);
> …
>
> Why was error detection omitted for close() calls here so far?
Because I believe that checking the return value of fclose() would not
provide additional value in this test case, which is focused on testing
the behavior of passive TFO.
I understand that fclose() could fail there, but considering the
trade-off between test reliability and code complexity (which increases
review and maintenance costs), I think checking the return value there
does not provide benefits to justify the added complexity. In fact, as
far as I can see, none of the existing tests in selftests/net check the
fclose() return value.
Thank you,
Yohei
>
> https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9799919799/functions/fclose.html
>
> Regards,
> Markus
