2013/10/18 Philippe Gerum <r...@xenomai.org>

> On 10/18/2013 03:21 PM, Kim De Mey wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2013/10/18 Philippe Gerum <r...@xenomai.org <mailto:r...@xenomai.org>>
>>
>>
>>     On 10/18/2013 02:54 PM, Philippe Gerum wrote:
>>
>>         On 10/18/2013 02:50 PM, Kim De Mey wrote:
>>
>>             Panic if one of the pipe() system calls fails. To indicate
>>             that there
>>             is an underlying problem.
>>
>>             Signed-off-by: Kim De Mey <kim.de...@gmail.com
>>             <mailto:kim.de...@gmail.com>>
>>
>>
>>             ---
>>
>>                lib/copperplate/notifier.c |  4 ++--
>>                1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>>             diff --git a/lib/copperplate/notifier.c
>>             b/lib/copperplate/notifier.c
>>             --- a/lib/copperplate/notifier.c
>>             +++ b/lib/copperplate/notifier.c
>>             @@ -144,12 +144,12 @@ int notifier_init(struct notifier *nf,
>>                    int fd;
>>
>>                    if (pipe(nf->psfd) < 0)
>>             -        return __bt(-errno);
>>             +        panic("failed to create file descriptors");
>>
>>                    if (pipe(nf->pwfd) < 0) {
>>                        __STD(close(nf->psfd[0]));
>>                        __STD(close(nf->psfd[1]));
>>             -        return __bt(-errno);
>>             +        panic("failed to create file descriptors");
>>                    }
>>
>>                    nf->callback = callback;
>>
>>
>>         Nack. This routine returns a status code, the caller should
>>         check it.
>>
>>
>>     warning() would be acceptable though, for the same purpose, while
>>     still propagating the error code instead of pulling the break
>>     arbitrarily.
>>
>>
>> Agreed it would be much better if the caller checked it. But it is
>> currently not checked in threadobj_setup_corespec(). And as I am unsure
>> of what to do with it in that function I did this patch.
>>
>> Although a warning is probably enough indeed in case nothing is done
>> with the error in threadobj_setup_corespec().
>>
>>
> We can't rely on this assumption, since this may evolve, including for
> Mercury. This said, assert() on the status code of notifier_init() within
> that routine would make sense, so that it triggers in debug mode when the
> app starts.
>
> So if I understand it right, you would add an assert() on the return value
of notifier_init() and also the warning() in notifier_init().
Or not the warning?

>
> --
> Philippe.
>
_______________________________________________
Xenomai mailing list
Xenomai@xenomai.org
http://www.xenomai.org/mailman/listinfo/xenomai

Reply via email to