Hi Wolfgang,
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 1:33 PM, Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org wrote:
Hi Wolfgang,
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 1:25 PM, Wolfgang Denk wd@denx.de wrote:
Dear Simon Glass,
In message CAPnjgZ1=1+xjHoAbJd4WETjC6Bj+6NPgGsXbStoGadieznF1=Q@mail.gmail.com you wrote:
run_command2() in "common/main.c" (now renamed into run_command() will return 0 or 1 when used with the hush shell; it will never return < 0.
Thanks for looking at this. I will see what I can figure out.
I think there is some pre-existing inconsistency here, which pops up when you try to unify the code.
I think we should implement standard shell handline here: commands return EXIT_SUCCESS or EXIT_FAILURE.
I have had another look at this and simplified it a bit. Basically cmd_process() was the point of unification for command execution, so I have made that always return either 0 or 1. I think that should solve any problems. I will send out a v4 series.
Regarding what commands return, I believe it is now true that commands are only called in one place. That place checks the return value for CMD_RET_USAGE. If it sees it, it calls cmd_usage() and returns 1. So CMD_RET_USAGE is never returned outside cmd_process(). It should just be a convenience for the command functions. In any case, all of the replacements of cmd_usage() with 'return CMD_RET_USAGE' are in the final patch if you want to leave that one out.
I have tested with sandbox using hush and without. If there is still a problem please tell me how to repeat it, and I will take another look.
Regards, Simon
Regards, Simon
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
-- DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd@denx.de The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it!) but "That's funny ..." -- Isaac Asimov