Re: [PATCH net-next 05/13] selftests: ncdevmem: Unify error handling

On 09/12, Mina Almasry wrote:

On Thu, Sep 12, 2024 at 10:13 AM Stanislav Fomichev [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

There is a bunch of places where error() calls look out of place.
Use the same error(1, errno, ...) pattern everywhere.

Cc: Mina Almasry <redacted>
Signed-off-by: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@fomichev.me>
---
 tools/testing/selftests/net/ncdevmem.c | 12 ++++++------
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/net/ncdevmem.c b/tools/testing/selftests/net/ncdevmem.c
index a20f40adfde8..c0da2b2e077f 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/net/ncdevmem.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/net/ncdevmem.c

@@ -332,32 +332,32 @@ int do_server(struct memory_buffer *mem)

        ret = inet_pton(server_sin.sin_family, server_ip, &server_sin.sin_addr);
        if (socket < 0)
-               error(79, 0, "%s: [FAIL, create socket]\n", TEST_PREFIX);
+               error(1, 0, "%s: [FAIL, create socket]\n", TEST_PREFIX);

        socket_fd = socket(server_sin.sin_family, SOCK_STREAM, 0);
        if (socket < 0)
-               error(errno, errno, "%s: [FAIL, create socket]\n", TEST_PREFIX);
+               error(1, errno, "%s: [FAIL, create socket]\n", TEST_PREFIX);

To be honest this was a bit intentional. For example here, I want to
see what errno socket() failed with; it's a clue to why it failed.

I guess you're not actually removing that, right? You're making the
return code of ncdevmem 1, but it will still print the errno of the
subfailure? That sounds fine.

Isn't it a bit more standard for the sub errno to be the return of the
parent process. But not opposed. If you think this is better we can go
for it.

Yes, this will still print the correct errno.