[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       linux-lvm
Subject:    Re: [linux-lvm] [PATCH 01/35] fsadm: Add "create" command
From:       Stephane Chazelas <stephane_chazelas () yahoo ! fr>
Date:       2011-09-22 10:56:49
Message-ID: 20110922105649.GC4407 () yahoo ! fr
[Download RAW message or body]

2011-09-22 11:28:36 +0200, Lukas Czerner:
[...]
> > > +	if [ $? -ne 0 ]; then
> > > +		error "FAILED. Exitting!"
> > > +	fi
> > 
> > "$@" || error ...
> 
> I guess it is just a matter of taste.
> 
> > 
> > or
> > 
> > if ! "$@"; then
> > error ...
> > fi
> 
> That is really not very readable.
[...]

That is how shell works. The syntax is

if
  list-of-commands
then
  other-list-of-commands
else
  yet-another-list-of-commands
fi

I find [ "$?" -ne 0 ] above very confusion and illegible myself.

Why would you run another command that fails if the last one
succeeded? 

> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +is_natural() {
> > > +	test "$1" -ge 0 &> /dev/null && return 1
> > 
> > 
> > &> is a bashism.
> 
> Probably (#!/bin/bash) :)

But it is called "fsadm.sh", that's misleading.

[...]
> > Again, I think that should be either:
> > 
> > set --
> > [ -n "$YES" ] &&
> > set -- -F
> > dry "mkfs.$fstyp" "$@" -b "$(($bsize*1024))" -E \
> > stride="${stride},stripe-width=${stripewidth}" "$device" 
> > or:
> > 
> > force=
> > [ -n "$YES" ] &&
> > force=-F
> > 
> > eval 'dry "mkfs.$fstyp" '"$force"' -b "$(($bsize*1024))" -E \
> > stride="${stride},stripe-width=${stripewidth}" "$device"'
> 
> Ok, I do understand the that I should rather use 'eval', but I do not
> understand why you're trying to get rid of the 'if', it is a bit longer,
> so what ? But is is also more obvious.

"if" is fine, it was just to save me some typing.

> > 
> > [...]
> > > +	is_natural $NEWSIZE
> > > +	[ $? -ne 1 ] && error "$NEWSIZE is not valid number for file system size"
> > 
> > With a fixed is_natural,
> > 
> > is_natural "$NEWSIZE" || error ...
> > 
> > [...]
> > > +	for i in $@; do
> > 
> > for i do
> 
> I am not sure what is wrong with that, it is more obvious and it works
> just fine.

for i in "$@"; do

would have been fine. Again, I can't think of any circumstance
where leaving $@ unquoted would make sense.

-- 
Stephane

_______________________________________________
linux-lvm mailing list
linux-lvm@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-lvm
read the LVM HOW-TO at http://tldp.org/HOWTO/LVM-HOWTO/


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]