On 16 September 2016 at 16:39, Daniel P. Berrange <berra...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 03:47:37PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote: >> On 16 September 2016 at 14:55, Laurent Vivier <lviv...@redhat.com> wrote: >> > This series is the result of coccinelle patch >> > scripts/coccinelle/exit.cocci >> > provided by the first patch of the series. >> > >> > It replaces exit(0) by exit(EXIT_SUCCESS) >> > and exit(1) by exit(EXIT_FAILURE). >> > >> > All other exit() are not modified as we don't want >> > to change the behavior. >> > >> > In some cases, I've added manually a line break to comply >> > with the maximum line length. >> >> > 182 files changed, 734 insertions(+), 715 deletions(-) >> >> You don't say why this is a useful change to make, and it's an >> awful lot of churn for a stylistic issue... > > Currently QEMU uses a mix of at least > > exit(EXIT_SUCCESS) > exit(EXIT_FAILURE) > exit(1) > exit(-1) > _exit(1) > _exit(0); > > so this series has the potential giving us more consistency style > and behaviour, across our code. By not fixing the up the usage of -1, > or fixing the _exit() usage, the series feels incomplete to me though.
-1 is just a bug which we should fix (as Eric says). I don't see the point in converting all our 0s and 1s to EXIT_SUCCESS and EXIT_FAILURE though. (It would be less churn to convert the uses of EXIT_* to 0 and 1...) thanks -- PMM
