On Wed, 2015-03-11 at 15:04 +0000, Wei Liu wrote: > On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 02:52:31PM +0000, Ian Campbell wrote: > > On Mon, 2015-03-09 at 11:01 +0000, Wei Liu wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 06, 2015 at 06:21:59PM +0100, Dario Faggioli wrote: > > > > with the rest of the file, where we return 1 on 0, rather > > > > than using libxl error codes. > > > > > > > > > > While being consistent is good I'm not very sure if we should go for 0/1 > > > rather than libxl error codes. I vaguely remember at some point we > > > discussed we should make xl exit code better but I don't remember the > > > exact details. > > > > > > Ian and Ian, what do you think? > > > > TBH I'm not sure what exit() called with a negative number even results > > in. > > > > I think having more consistent exist codes from xl would be nice, but I > > don't think the libxl error codes are the ones to use, since they don't > > really map semantically onto what I would expect a CLI tool to fail with > > (I'm not sure what I would expect though, something a bit higher level > > on a command specific basis probably). > > > > I agree that libxl error codes are not the ones to use. > > Since we haven't explicitly defined any return value in xl manpage, I > think we should use EXIT_SUCCESS and EXIT_FAILURE per exit(3). They are > more appropriate then 0 and 1.
I guess so, yes. Ian. _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
