Subject: Re: [PATCH iproute2-next 1/8] iplink: Return from function instead of calling exit()

From: Serhey Popovych <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 22:17:24 +0200

Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 21:39:51 +0200
> Serhey Popovych <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
>> Signed-off-by: Serhey Popovych <[email-masked]>
>> ---
>>  ip/iplink.c |   12 ++++++------
>>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/ip/iplink.c b/ip/iplink.c
>> index 74c377c..a2c8108 100644
>> --- a/ip/iplink.c
>> +++ b/ip/iplink.c
>> @@ -653,7 +653,7 @@ int iplink_parse(int argc, char **argv, struct iplink_req *req,
>>  			NEXT_ARG();
>>  			if (xdp_parse(&argc, &argv, req, dev_index,
>>  				      generic, drv, offload))
>> -				exit(-1);
>> +				return -1;
>>  		} else if (strcmp(*argv, "netns") == 0) {
>>  			NEXT_ARG();
>>  			if (netns != -1)
>> @@ -972,12 +972,12 @@ static int iplink_modify(int cmd, unsigned int flags, int argc, char **argv)
>>  		if (!dev) {
>>  			fprintf(stderr,
>>  				"Not enough information: \"dev\" argument is required.\n");
>> -			exit(-1);
>> +			return -1;
>>  		}
>>  		if (cmd == RTM_NEWLINK && index) {
>>  			fprintf(stderr,
>>  				"index can be used only when creating devices.\n");
>> -			exit(-1);
>> +			return -1;
>>  		}
>>  
>>  		req.i.ifi_index = ll_name_to_index(dev);
>> @@ -1392,7 +1392,7 @@ static int do_set(int argc, char **argv)
>>  	if (!dev) {
>>  		fprintf(stderr,
>>  			"Not enough of information: \"dev\" argument is required.\n");
>> -		exit(-1);
>> +		return -1;
>>  	}
>>  
>>  	if (newaddr || newbrd) {
>> @@ -1553,7 +1553,7 @@ static int iplink_afstats(int argc, char **argv)
>>  			fprintf(stderr,
>>  				"Command \"%s\" is unknown, try \"ip link help\".\n",
>>  				*argv);
>> -			exit(-1);
>> +			return -1;
>>  		}
>>  
>>  		argv++; argc--;
>> @@ -1648,5 +1648,5 @@ int do_iplink(int argc, char **argv)
>>  
>>  	fprintf(stderr, "Command \"%s\" is unknown, try \"ip link help\".\n",
>>  		*argv);
>> -	exit(-1);
>> +	return -1;
>>  }
> 
> Not sure I like this. If given bad input in batch it is better to stop and exit
> rather than continuing with more bad data.

When preparing this change I think in opposite direction: we want to
continue batch mode if single line is broken.

If desired I will drop this one.