Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xl: Fix CHK_ERRNO

[Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Andrew Cooper writes ("Re: [PATCH] xl: Fix CHK_ERRNO"):
> On 10/12/13 15:13, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > You propose:
> >
> >   #define CHK_POSERRNO( call ) ({                                     \
> >           int chk_errno = (call);                                     \
> >           if (chk_errno > 0) {                                        \
> >               fprintf(stderr,"xl: fatal error: %s:%d: %s: %s\n",      \
> >                       __FILE__,__LINE__, strerror(chk_errno), #call); \
> >               exit(-ERROR_FAIL);                                      \
> >           }                                                           \
> >       })
...
> In v2 of the patch, CHK_POSERRNO was renamed to CHK_LIBXLERR, but I can
> certainly extend it to abort() if negative.

But this has no connection to libxl error values.  The error codes
checked for here are actually errno values.  So why are you proposing
to call it CHK_LIBXLERR ?

CHK_LIBXLERR would be for something that returned a libxl error value
on error (and a nonnegative integer, perhaps 0, on success).

I think Ian Campbell may have been misled by the calls to
libxl_read_exactly.  These functions do not return libxl error codes,
but errno values, and this is stated in their doc comment.

Ian.

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