Re: [libvirt] [PATCH v2 1/2] Document virPCIGetPhysicalFunction() and fix its callers

2016-05-25 Thread Andrea Bolognani
On Tue, 2016-05-24 at 11:22 -0400, Laine Stump wrote: > On 05/24/2016 07:11 AM, Andrea Bolognani wrote: > >  > > Commit c8b1a83605e4 changed the function, making it > > impossible for callers to be able to tell whether a > > non-negative return value means "physical function > > address found and

Re: [libvirt] [PATCH v2 1/2] Document virPCIGetPhysicalFunction() and fix its callers

2016-05-24 Thread Laine Stump
On 05/24/2016 07:11 AM, Andrea Bolognani wrote: Commit c8b1a83605e4 changed the function, making it impossible for callers to be able to tell whether a non-negative return value means "physical function address found and parsed correctly" or "couldn't find corresponding physical function". The

[libvirt] [PATCH v2 1/2] Document virPCIGetPhysicalFunction() and fix its callers

2016-05-24 Thread Andrea Bolognani
Commit c8b1a83605e4 changed the function, making it impossible for callers to be able to tell whether a non-negative return value means "physical function address found and parsed correctly" or "couldn't find corresponding physical function". The important difference between the two being that,