Re: [lm-sensors] PATCH: make lm_sensors init script return values

[Jean Delvare <khali@linux-fr.org>]

Hi Hans,

On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 13:04:10 +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> I've received the attached patch through Fedora's bugzilla. It fixes the return 
> values of the various error exit cases to match the LSB spec:
> http://refspecs.linux-foundation.org/LSB_3.2.0/LSB-Core-generic/LSB-Core-generic/iniscrptact.html
> 
> It looks sane to me, if there are no objections I'll commit it to svn.

> --- lm_sensors.orig	2008-02-07 11:37:22.000000000 -0500
> +++ lm_sensors	2008-02-07 11:41:04.000000000 -0500
> @@ -40,15 +40,15 @@
>  
>  	# Don't bother if /proc/sensors still doesn't exist, kernel doesn't have
>  	# support for sensors.
> -	[ -e /proc/sys/dev/sensors ] || exit 0
> +	[ -e /proc/sys/dev/sensors ] || exit 6

Note that this doesn't work with a 2.6 kernel anyway, which makes me
wonder whether it's worth keeping these init files in the lm-sensors
tree. Obviously no distribution uses them as-is.

>  
>  	# If sensors was not already running, unload the module...
>  	[ -e /var/lock/subsys/lm_sensors ] || /sbin/modprobe -r i2c-proc >/dev/null 2>&1
>  fi
>  
>  CONFIG=/etc/sysconfig/lm_sensors
> -[ -r "$CONFIG" ] || exit 0
> -grep '^MODULE_' $CONFIG >/dev/null 2>&1 || exit 0
> +[ -r "$CONFIG" ] || exit 6
> +grep '^MODULE_' $CONFIG >/dev/null 2>&1 || exit 6

I am worried that this error check (and the one above) is done
independently of the command, i.e. also for command "status", while the
document you mentioned above states that the error codes are different
for this command, and "6" isn't valid there. So I think that the
configuration file check and loading should be moved to the specific
commands that need it (start and stop as far as I can see) before you
can return 6 on missing configuration file.

>  
>  # Load config file
>  . "$CONFIG"
> @@ -147,7 +147,7 @@
>  	;;
>    *)
>  	echo "Usage: $0 {start|stop|status|restart|reload|condrestart}"
> -	exit 1
> +	exit 3

None of the init scripts in openSuse does this. They all use "exit 1",
and that sounds reasonable to me. If the user runs "lm_sensors blah",
it will fail, not because it is an "unimplemented feature" (3) but
because the user typed a command that doesn't exist. So I wouldn't
change it, but if you really don't like 1, then 2 ("invalid or excess
argument(s)") would be a better choice (we have one openSuse script
that does this.)

>  esac
>  
>  exit $RETVAL


-- 
Jean Delvare

_______________________________________________
lm-sensors mailing list
lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors