On Tue, Jan 13, 2026 at 03:48:11PM +0100, Markus Elfring wrote:
…
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/net/tfo.c @@ -82,8 +82,10 @@ static void run_server(void)
…
if (read(connfd, buf, 64) < 0)
perror("read()");- fprintf(outfile, "%d\n", opt);
error(1, errno, "read()");- if (fprintf(outfile, "%d\n", opt) < 0)
error(1, errno, "fprintf()");fclose(outfile); close(connfd);
…
Why was error detection omitted for close() calls here so far?
Because I believe that checking the return value of fclose() would not provide additional value in this test case, which is focused on testing the behavior of passive TFO.
I understand that fclose() could fail there, but considering the trade-off between test reliability and code complexity (which increases review and maintenance costs), I think checking the return value there does not provide benefits to justify the added complexity. In fact, as far as I can see, none of the existing tests in selftests/net check the fclose() return value.
Thank you, Yohei
https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9799919799/functions/fclose.html
Regards, Markus