[linux-cifs-client] Re: [PATCH] mount.cifs: make return codes match the return codes for /bin/mount (try #2)

[Jeff Layton]

On Wed, 8 Oct 2008 14:58:02 -0400
Jeff Layton <jlayton at redhat.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 14:26:07 -0400
> Jeff Moyer <jmoyer at redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > Jeff Layton <jlayton at redhat.com> writes:
> > 
> > > The manpage for /bin/mount specifies that the return code should be a
> > > positive integer (actually, it's a bitfield). Clean up the return
> > > codes from mount.cifs to make them match the expected return values
> > > from /bin/mount. This necessary for proper integration with autofs.
> > >
> > > This is the second attempt at this patch. The main difference here
> > > is that this one uses #define'd constants for the exit codes. I
> > > also changed a few places to return EX_SYSERR rather than EX_USAGE
> > > since it looked like a more appropriate error.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton at redhat.com>
> > 
> > Well, I don't like the mixed exit()s and return's, but that was there
> > before.  There's also the question of whether you really want to return
> > the same error code for all of the below cases:
> > 
> >         if(mount(dev_name, mountpoint, "cifs", flags, options)) {
> >                 case 0:
> >                 case ENODEV:
> >                 case ENXIO:
> >                 default:
> > 
> > But again, that was already there.  If folks find those things
> > palatable, then I'm okay with this.  I guess it's worth noting that I am
> > somewhat familiar with the mount code, and I believe this is exactly
> > what it expects, since it just returns the exit status of the
> > fs-specific mount command in the failure case.
> > 
> > Acked-by: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer at redhat.com>
> > 
> 
> Thanks Jeff,
> 
>    I've got a new patch that replaces the "return -1" calls with
> exit(EX_USAGE) for most of these cases, so we should be able to make
> that more consistent. I'll plan to commit that one tomorrow unless
> anyone has objections.
> 
> For the switch statement, I'd rather hold off on making changes there.
> I'm working on some cleanup to the cifs_mount() kernel code now as
> well. I'd like to wait until that's closer to complete and then
> reevaluate the switch as a whole. There may be other cases we need to
> handle, and I'm not convinced that the printf's are currently always
> correct for the cases that we have there.
> 

Patch pushed to samba master, and v3-x-test branches.

-- 
Jeff Layton <jlayton at redhat.com>