From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.3 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D3F2C10DCE for ; Tue, 24 Mar 2020 23:44:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D822B20719 for ; Tue, 24 Mar 2020 23:44:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726943AbgCXXol (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Mar 2020 19:44:41 -0400 Received: from mail104.syd.optusnet.com.au ([211.29.132.246]:58863 "EHLO mail104.syd.optusnet.com.au" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726212AbgCXXol (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Mar 2020 19:44:41 -0400 Received: from dread.disaster.area (pa49-195-202-68.pa.nsw.optusnet.com.au [49.195.202.68]) by mail104.syd.optusnet.com.au (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 368227EB12E; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 10:44:39 +1100 (AEDT) Received: from dave by dread.disaster.area with local (Exim 4.92.3) (envelope-from ) id 1jGtDq-0005ZU-5V; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 10:44:38 +1100 Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2020 10:44:38 +1100 From: Dave Chinner To: "Darrick J. Wong" Cc: Eric Sandeen , linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] xfs_io: set exitcode on failure appropriately Message-ID: <20200324234438.GD10776@dread.disaster.area> References: <20200324001928.17894-1-david@fromorbit.com> <20200324001928.17894-6-david@fromorbit.com> <20200324231255.GZ10776@dread.disaster.area> <20200324232401.GT29339@magnolia> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200324232401.GT29339@magnolia> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) X-Optus-CM-Score: 0 X-Optus-CM-Analysis: v=2.3 cv=X6os11be c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=mqTaRPt+QsUAtUurwE173Q==:117 a=mqTaRPt+QsUAtUurwE173Q==:17 a=jpOVt7BSZ2e4Z31A5e1TngXxSK0=:19 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=SS2py6AdgQ4A:10 a=20KFwNOVAAAA:8 a=7-415B0cAAAA:8 a=4e34b6Gni3NOzRK8PJQA:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=biEYGPWJfzWAr4FL6Ov7:22 Sender: linux-xfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 04:24:01PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 10:12:55AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 03:57:26PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > > > On 3/23/20 7:19 PM, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > > From: Dave Chinner > > > > > > > > Many operations don't set the exitcode when they fail, resulting > > > > in xfs_io exiting with a zero (no failure) exit code despite the > > > > command failing and returning an error. The command return code is > > > > really a boolean to tell the libxcmd command loop whether to > > > > continue processing or not, while exitcode is the actual xfs_io exit > > > > code returned to the parent on exit. > > > > > > > > This patchset just makes the code do the right thing. It's not the > > > > nicest code, but it's a start at producing correct behaviour. > > > > > > > > Signed-Off-By: Dave Chinner > > > > > > I wonder if there somewhere we could formally document these conventions... > > > > > > Like maybe at least near the "exitcode" global declaration? > > > > I really think we need to rework the way we do the error handling > > in the command line parsing for these utilities. One of the things I > > found in doing this is that most of the code does return error codes > > to the main function, only then to drop it on the floor and turn it > > into "exitcode = 1; return 0;" pair. > > > > So I'm pondering how to make this much simpler - returning error > > codes from the command functions would be a much better idea, > > then have a command flag to indicate whether we continue on error or > > terminate. > > > > That moves all the exit code handling out of the commands and > > provides consistent error handling for all commands and > > infrastructure - 0 = success, failure returns negative errno - and > > so should enable much more reliable and consistent error handling > > across all the utilities.... > > It seems reasonable to me, though I wonder how fstests will react to > that. Then again, a lot of xfs_io error handling seems to be done via > grep so maybe it wouldn't be that bad. :) Pretty much. I don't think it will have much impact at all. This patch hasn't caused any new failures in my fstests runs at all, so I don't think further work to simplify this functionality will cause new problems, either... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com