Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 24/31] libxl: provide libxl__remove_file et al.

[Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 2012-04-11 at 11:56 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Ian Campbell writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 24/31] libxl: provide 
> libxl__remove_file et al."):
> > On Tue, 2012-04-10 at 20:07 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > +int libxl__remove_file_or_directory(libxl__gc *gc, const char *path)
> > > +{
> > > +    for (;;) {
> > > +        int r = rmdir(path);
> > > +        if (!r) return 0;
> > > +        if (errno == ENOENT) return 0;
> > > +        if (errno == ENOTEMPTY) return libxl__remove_directory(gc, path);
> > > +        if (errno == ENOTDIR) return libxl__remove_file(gc, path);
> > > +        if (errno == EINTR) continue;
> > 
> > starting to look a bit like a switch statement...
> 
> Perhaps.  I'm not sure I want to obscure the similarity with (and the
> differences from) the other analogous error-handling code, and those
> other sites typically have only a couple of errno cases making a
> switch overkill.  Also of course a switch would switch only on errno
> whereas the branching is on r too, so it would add another level of
> nesting.

Sounds reasonable to leave it as is then.

> 
> > > +    for (;;) {
> > > +        int r = rmdir(dirpath);
> > > +        if (!r) break;
> > > +        if (errno == ENOENT) return 0;
> > 
> > This misses the closedir() at out?
> 
> Well spotted, fixed.
> 
> Ian.



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel