On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 02:09:09PM +0000, Dario Faggioli wrote: > On Wed, 2015-03-18 at 13:08 +0000, Ian Campbell wrote: > > On Wed, 2015-03-18 at 13:06 +0000, Ian Campbell wrote: > > > On Fri, 2015-03-13 at 16:26 -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > > > > The function does not return any values at all. Convert the > > > > internal libxl ones (ERROR_FAIL, ..., etc) to positive values > > > > and for the other cases just return standard libxl values. > > > > > > It's not clear why you want to do this, in particular returning > > > -ERROR_INVAL and inverting libxl error codes seems like a very strange > > > thing to be doing. > > > > BTW I know the xl error handling is horribly confused, and there are > > even a small number of instances of -ERROR_* already, but I think those > > are wrong and we shouldn't introduce more. > > > Indeed. I did some xl error code refactoring for a series of mine a few > days back, and as far as I could see, the most common pattern in xl is > returning 0 or 1.
Gah, I seem to have looked at the wrong examples and thought that was the proper way! > > FWIW, I think we should not diverge any further from that and, at some > point, convert 0/1 to EXIT_SUCCESS/EXIT_FAILURE. > > > > I think you should either use ERROR_INVAL (not inverted) and propagate > > > libxl rc's directly or convert them into something which suits xl, i.e. > > > 0 and 1. > > > > Again, +1 for 0 or 1. > > Regards, > Dario _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
