Re: [PATCH 8/9] xl: make error reporting of cpupool subcommands consistent

[Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>]

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.