With a second review, I think this patch need more reviews.
On 07/26/2012 09:46 PM, Yunkai Zhang wrote:
> +int send_light_req(struct sd_req *hdr, const char *host, int port)
> +{
> + int fd, ret;
> + struct sd_rsp *rsp = (struct sd_rsp *)hdr;
> + unsigned rlen, wlen;
> +
> + fd = connect_to(host, port);
> + if (fd < 0)
> + return -1;
> +
> + rlen = 0;
> + wlen = 0;
> + ret = exec_req(fd, hdr, NULL, &wlen, &rlen);
> + close(fd);
> +
> + if (ret) {
> + return -1;
> + }
Simply eprintf inside this function for connection failed
> +
> + if (rsp->result != SD_RES_SUCCESS) {
> + eprintf("Response's result: %s\n", sd_strerror(rsp->result));
> + return 1;
> + }
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
Then use -1 for error case and 0 for success. No need to use both -1 and
1 to represent failure case.
Thanks,
Yuan
--
sheepdog mailing list
sheepdog@lists.wpkg.org
http://lists.wpkg.org/mailman/listinfo/sheepdog
