[PATCH] fsck.xfs: do not use 'function' keyword

[PATCH] fsck.xfs: do not use 'function' keyword

[Eric Sandeen]

It was pointed out on irc that fsck.xfs uses the 'function' keyword
although it invokes /bin/sh - 'function' is a bashism.  It's not needed
here, so just remove it.

Fixes: 04a2d5d ("fsck.xfs: allow forced repairs using xfs_repair")
Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>
---

This might be a 4.16.1 item, if strict-sh initscripts fail to run fsck.xfs at
boot time ...?

diff --git a/fsck/xfs_fsck.sh b/fsck/xfs_fsck.sh
index c9fc3eb..1916c07 100755
--- a/fsck/xfs_fsck.sh
+++ b/fsck/xfs_fsck.sh
@@ -6,7 +6,7 @@
 NAME=$0
 
 # get the right return code for fsck
-function repair2fsck_code() {
+repair2fsck_code() {
 	case $1 in
 	0)  return 0 # everything is ok
 		;;

Re: [PATCH] fsck.xfs: do not use 'function' keyword

[Darrick J. Wong]

On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 08:15:28PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> It was pointed out on irc that fsck.xfs uses the 'function' keyword
> although it invokes /bin/sh - 'function' is a bashism.  It's not needed
> here, so just remove it.
> 
> Fixes: 04a2d5d ("fsck.xfs: allow forced repairs using xfs_repair")
> Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>

Does RHEL have 'checkbashisms'?

Reviewed-by: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@oracle.com>

--D

> ---
> 
> This might be a 4.16.1 item, if strict-sh initscripts fail to run fsck.xfs at
> boot time ...?
> 
> diff --git a/fsck/xfs_fsck.sh b/fsck/xfs_fsck.sh
> index c9fc3eb..1916c07 100755
> --- a/fsck/xfs_fsck.sh
> +++ b/fsck/xfs_fsck.sh
> @@ -6,7 +6,7 @@
>  NAME=$0
>  
>  # get the right return code for fsck
> -function repair2fsck_code() {
> +repair2fsck_code() {
>  	case $1 in
>  	0)  return 0 # everything is ok
>  		;;
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [PATCH] fsck.xfs: do not use 'function' keyword

[Jan Tulak]

On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 3:15 AM, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@sandeen.net> wrote:
> It was pointed out on irc that fsck.xfs uses the 'function' keyword
> although it invokes /bin/sh - 'function' is a bashism.  It's not needed
> here, so just remove it.
>

Ah, thanks.

Jan

Re: [PATCH] fsck.xfs: do not use 'function' keyword

[Eric Sandeen]

On 4/30/18 12:30 AM, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 08:15:28PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> It was pointed out on irc that fsck.xfs uses the 'function' keyword
>> although it invokes /bin/sh - 'function' is a bashism.  It's not needed
>> here, so just remove it.
>>
>> Fixes: 04a2d5d ("fsck.xfs: allow forced repairs using xfs_repair")
>> Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>
> 
> Does RHEL have 'checkbashisms'?

Hm, yes, Fedora & RHEL have it in devscripts-minimal.

$ checkbashisms ./fsck/xfs_fsck.sh
possible bashism in ./fsck/xfs_fsck.sh line 9 ('function' is useless):
function repair2fsck_code() {
possible bashism in ./fsck/xfs_fsck.sh line 62 ('command' with option other than -p):
	XFS_REPAIR=`command -v xfs_repair`

Apparently -v is only part of "User Portability Utilities?"
 
> Reviewed-by: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@oracle.com>
> 
> --D
> 
>> ---

Re: [PATCH] fsck.xfs: do not use 'function' keyword

[Jan Tulak]

On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 3:28 PM, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@sandeen.net> wrote:
>
> On 4/30/18 12:30 AM, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
>> On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 08:15:28PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>>> It was pointed out on irc that fsck.xfs uses the 'function' keyword
>>> although it invokes /bin/sh - 'function' is a bashism.  It's not needed
>>> here, so just remove it.
>>>
>>> Fixes: 04a2d5d ("fsck.xfs: allow forced repairs using xfs_repair")
>>> Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>
>>
>> Does RHEL have 'checkbashisms'?
>
> Hm, yes, Fedora & RHEL have it in devscripts-minimal.
>
> $ checkbashisms ./fsck/xfs_fsck.sh
> possible bashism in ./fsck/xfs_fsck.sh line 9 ('function' is useless):
> function repair2fsck_code() {
> possible bashism in ./fsck/xfs_fsck.sh line 62 ('command' with option other than -p):
>         XFS_REPAIR=`command -v xfs_repair`
>
> Apparently -v is only part of "User Portability Utilities?"
>

I think so. Is it any problem? If so, I will try to find some other
way how to search in PATH.

Jan