On 22.6.2018 21:28, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi Michal,
>
> On 22 June 2018 at 00:33, Michal Simek <michal.si...@xilinx.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 21.6.2018 21:45, Simon Glass wrote:
>>> On 21 June 2018 at 06:58, Michal Simek <michal.si...@xilinx.com> wrote:
>>>> Use enum command_ret_t types in cmd_process_error().
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Michal Simek <michal.si...@xilinx.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> Changes in v2:
>>>> - Move adding RET_USAGE to separate patch.
>>>>
>>>> common/command.c | 4 ++--
>>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Reviewed-by: Simon Glass <s...@chromum.org>
>>>
>>>
>>>> diff --git a/common/command.c b/common/command.c
>>>> index 52d47c133c3c..a4a8dc601acb 100644
>>>> --- a/common/command.c
>>>> +++ b/common/command.c
>>>> @@ -549,8 +549,8 @@ int cmd_process_error(cmd_tbl_t *cmdtp, int err)
>>>> {
>>>> if (err) {
>>>> printf("Command '%s' failed: Error %d\n", cmdtp->name,
>>>> err);
>>>> - return 1;
>>>> + return CMD_RET_FAILURE;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> - return 0;
>>>> + return CMD_RET_SUCCESS;
>>>
>>> I actually thing 0 is fine here. That is the definition of success.
>>
>> and CMD_RET_SUCCESS has this 0 value too.
>>
>> maybe would be worth to also change return type to enum command_ret_t
>> as is done for cmd_process.
>>
>> For example ubi_remove_vol() in case of failure returs +ENODEV and others.
>> I thought that commands could return only 3 values convert by enum
>> command_ret_t. Or is it ok to return also different values?
>
> Commands should only return things from the enum. My point was that I
> find 'return CMD_RET_SUCCESS' to be a bit painful. We know the value
> is 0 and it is much shorter to read, so I prefer 'return 0' instead of
> 'return CMD_RET_SUCCESS'
>
> Also I like this:
>
> if (!xx)
> // we got an error
>
> and don't like this:
>
> if (xx != CMD_RET_SUCCESS)
> // we got an error
ok. Got what you meant.
Thanks,
Michal
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
