Re: [PATCH 2/2] hwclock: fix regression from c3ae785

[Ruediger Meier <sweet_f_a@gmx.de>]

On Tuesday 18 July 2017, J William Piggott wrote:
> hwclock --get foobar
> hwclock: 3 too many arguments given
>
> Fixed:
>
> hwclock --get foobar
> hwclock: 1 too many arguments given
>
> Signed-off-by: J William Piggott <elseifthen@gmx.com>
> ---
>  sys-utils/hwclock.c | 5 +++--
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/sys-utils/hwclock.c b/sys-utils/hwclock.c
> index 9745158..9b313cf 100644
> --- a/sys-utils/hwclock.c
> +++ b/sys-utils/hwclock.c
> @@ -1448,9 +1448,10 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
>  		}
>  	}
>
> -	if (argc > optind) {
> +	argc -= optind;
> +	if (argc > 0) {
>  		warnx(_("%d too many arguments given"), argc);

Oops, sorry for this regression ;)

Anyways, at least for me "1 too many arguments given" does not sound 
really understandable.  Maybe we don't need that number at all!?


> -		errtryhelp(EXIT_FAILURE);
> +		errtryhelp(EX_USAGE);

What about changing also the last other errtryhelp(EXIT_FAILURE) to 
EX_USAGE, 5 lines above?


>  	}
>
>  	if (!ctl.adj_file_name)
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe util-linux"
> in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html