On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 09:19:10AM -0500, Carlos Torres wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On 2/10/14, sin wrote:
> > So I don't see how or-ing the return values actually does anything.
> > It can only be -1 or 0.
> >
> > Am I missing something here?
>
> No sir. this patch simply emulates whats wrong with uti
Hello,
On 2/10/14, sin wrote:
> So I don't see how or-ing the return values actually does anything.
> It can only be -1 or 0.
>
> Am I missing something here?
No sir. this patch simply emulates whats wrong with util-linux's
swapon/swapoff.
Its not necessary unless you want full compatibility.
On Sun, Feb 09, 2014 at 09:17:07PM -0500, Carlos Torres wrote:
> Hello,
> This patch is food for thought. i looked closer at what util-linux
> does (ugh) and found that their exit codes are what swapon/swapoff
> return. so this is an alternative patch that behaves the same way. I
> thought its
Hello,
This patch is food for thought. i looked closer at what util-linux
does (ugh) and found that their exit codes are what swapon/swapoff
return. so this is an alternative patch that behaves the same way. I
thought its possible there are shell scripts out there that are
interested in the ex
