Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> writes: > 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...)
Seconded.
