Re: [libvirt] [PATCH 2/2] qemu: Reject unsupported tuning in session mode

2014-03-04 Thread Eric Blake
On 03/04/2014 07:13 AM, Martin Kletzander wrote: >>> 1) Would helper function (macro) be preferred so the code looks >>> cleaner? >> >> What macro do you have in mind? >> > > I haven't thought that through, just from top of my head: > > #define SESSION_UNSUPP(what) if (!cfg->privile

Re: [libvirt] [PATCH 2/2] qemu: Reject unsupported tuning in session mode

2014-03-04 Thread Martin Kletzander
On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 06:44:01AM -0700, Eric Blake wrote: > On 03/03/2014 10:21 AM, Martin Kletzander wrote: > > When domain is started with setting that cannot be done, i.e. those > > that require cgroups, there is no error reported and it succeeds > > without any message whatsoever. > > > > Whe

Re: [libvirt] [PATCH 2/2] qemu: Reject unsupported tuning in session mode

2014-03-04 Thread Eric Blake
On 03/03/2014 10:21 AM, Martin Kletzander wrote: > When domain is started with setting that cannot be done, i.e. those > that require cgroups, there is no error reported and it succeeds > without any message whatsoever. > > When setting with API, virsh, an error is reported, but only due to > the

[libvirt] [PATCH 2/2] qemu: Reject unsupported tuning in session mode

2014-03-03 Thread Martin Kletzander
When domain is started with setting that cannot be done, i.e. those that require cgroups, there is no error reported and it succeeds without any message whatsoever. When setting with API, virsh, an error is reported, but only due to the fact that no cgroups are mounted (priv->cgroup == NULL). Giv