Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] common: exit --> _exit

["Nirjhar Roy (IBM)" <nirjhar.roy.lists@gmail.com>]

On 4/8/25 00:16, Ritesh Harjani (IBM) wrote:
> Zorro Lang <zlang@redhat.com> writes:
>
>> On Fri, Apr 04, 2025 at 10:34:47AM +0530, Ritesh Harjani wrote:
>>> "Nirjhar Roy (IBM)" <nirjhar.roy.lists@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Replace exit <return-val> with _exit <return-val> which
>>>> is introduced in the previous patch.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Nirjhar Roy (IBM) <nirjhar.roy.lists@gmail.com>
> <...>
>>>> ---
>>>> @@ -225,7 +225,7 @@ _filter_bmap()
>>>>   die_now()
>>>>   {
>>>>   	status=1
>>>> -	exit
>>>> +	_exit
>>> Why not remove status=1 too and just do _exit 1 here too?
>>> Like how we have done at other places?
>> Yeah, nice catch! As the defination of _exit:
>>
>>    _exit()
>>    {
>>         status="$1"
>>         exit "$status"
>>    }
>>
>> The
>>    "
>>    status=1
>>    exit
>>    "
>> should be equal to:
>>    "
>>    _exit 1
>>    "
>>
>> And "_exit" looks not make sense, due to it gives null to status.
>>
>> Same problem likes below:
>>
>>
>> @@ -3776,7 +3773,7 @@ _get_os_name()
>>                  echo 'linux'
>>          else
>>                  echo Unknown operating system: `uname`
>> -               exit
>> +               _exit
>>
>>
>> The "_exit" without argument looks not make sense.
>>
> That's right. _exit called with no argument could make status as null.
Yes, that is correct.
> To prevent such misuse in future, should we add a warning/echo message

Yeah, the other thing that we can do is 'status=${1:-0}'. In that case, 
for cases where the return value is a success, we simply use "_exit". 
Which one do you think adds more value and flexibility to the usage?

--NR

> if the no. of arguments passed to _exit() is not 1?
>
> -ritesh

-- 
Nirjhar Roy
Linux Kernel Developer
IBM, Bangalore