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 majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > 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 majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > -- gpg key@ keyserver.linux.it: Goffredo Baroncelli (ghigo) <kreijackATinwind.it> Key fingerprint = 4769 7E51 5293 D36C 814E C054 BF04 F161 3DC5 0512 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
