From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: sweet_f_a@gmx.de From: Ruediger Meier To: J William Piggott Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] hwclock: fix regression from c3ae785 Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 22:33:42 +0200 Cc: Karel Zak , util-linux@vger.kernel.org References: <13448500-dbe1-b7f8-3514-651d448f00d1@gmx.com> In-Reply-To: <13448500-dbe1-b7f8-3514-651d448f00d1@gmx.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Message-Id: <201707182233.42270.sweet_f_a@gmx.de> List-ID: 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 > --- > 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