From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: david.goulet@polymtl.ca (David Goulet)
Date: Tue,  7 Sep 2010 16:40:02 -0400
Subject: [ltt-dev] [RFC UST] ustctl return value
Message-ID: <1283892002-2728-1-git-send-email-david.goulet@polymtl.ca>

---
 ustctl/ustctl.c |    4 +++-
 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

diff --git a/ustctl/ustctl.c b/ustctl/ustctl.c
index d290975..152fc07 100644
--- a/ustctl/ustctl.c
+++ b/ustctl/ustctl.c
@@ -170,6 +170,7 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[])
 {
 	pid_t *pidit;
 	int result;
+	int retval = EXIT_SUCCESS;
 	char *tmp;
 	struct ust_opts opts;
 
@@ -256,6 +257,7 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[])
 					fprintf(stderr,
 						"error while trying to list markers for"
 						" PID %u\n", (unsigned int) *pidit);
+					retval = EXIT_FAILURE;
/* I'm just not sure about the right thing to do here. Let's use a simple
 * test case. We use ustctl to list markers for a certain PID
 * but this process died before we were able to list markers. Right now,
 * ustctl is returning 0 even if the command fails. So, is it good to return
 * an EXIT_FAILURE value here or not? It's not quite ustctl that failed... so...?
 *
 * I'm asking because, as now, there is NO way of knowing if the command
 * pass to ustctl was successful without "analysing" the error message
 * on stderr (string manip). For scripting, it's not good nor cool...
 */
 					break;
 				}
 				unsigned int i = 0;
@@ -356,6 +358,6 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[])
 		free(opts.regex);
 	}
 
-	return 0;
+	return retval;
 }
 
-- 
1.7.2.2