xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] xfsprogs: xfs_copy: use exit() to replace killall()

To: Junxiao Bi <junxiao.bi@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfsprogs: xfs_copy: use exit() to replace killall()
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 4 May 2014 03:34:43 -0700
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, joe.jin@xxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <1399189455-29890-1-git-send-email-junxiao.bi@xxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1399189455-29890-1-git-send-email-junxiao.bi@xxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Sun, May 04, 2014 at 03:44:15PM +0800, Junxiao Bi wrote:
> Sending a SIGKILL signal to child thread will terminate the whole process,
> xfs_copy will return an error value 137. This cause confuse for script to
> know whether the copy successes.
> 
> Calling exit() in main thread can terminate the whole process and return the
> right value.

Looks generally good to me, but the changelog should have some more
details:

>       if (buf->length > buf->size)  {
>               do_warn(_("assert error:  buf->length = %d, buf->size = %d\n"),
>                       buf->length, buf->size);
> -             killall();
> -             abort();
> +             exit(1);

You're replacing the killall with an exit here and removing the abort()
call.  I can see arguments for keeping either the abort or exit, but please
document why you did in the patch description.  If the exit was
intentional should we return a different value for an assertation
failure?

> -     killall();
> -     pthread_exit(NULL);
> -     /*NOTREACHED*/
> -     return 0;
> +
> +     exit(0);

You're also replacing the return 0 from main with an exit which
seem superflous.

Btw, I think the reason for this cruft is that xfs_copy was originally
written using the IRIX sproc interface, and the port to pthreads didn't
remove this gem:

http://marc.info/?l=linux-xfs&m=99535721110020&w=2

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>