Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 COLOPre 11/13] tools/libxl: rename remus device to checkpoint device

[Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Wei Liu writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 COLOPre 11/13] tools/libxl: rename 
remus device to checkpoint device"):
> On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 02:30:46PM +0100, Wei Liu wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 08, 2015 at 11:43:15AM +0800, Yang Hongyang wrote:
> > > -    (-18, "REMUS_DEVOPS_DOES_NOT_MATCH"),
> > > -    (-19, "REMUS_DEVICE_NOT_SUPPORTED"),
> > > +    (-18, "CHECKPOINT_DEVOPS_DOES_NOT_MATCH"),
> > > +    (-19, "CHECKPOINT_DEVICE_NOT_SUPPORTED"),
> > 
> > You should add two new error numbers.
> > 
> 
> And in that case you might also need to go through all places to make
> sure the correct error numbers are return. I.e. old remus code path
> still returns REMUS error code and new CHECKPOINT code path returns new
> error code.
> 
> I merely speak from API backward compatibility point of view. If you
> think what I suggest doesn't make sense, please let me know.

To me this line of reasons prompts me to ask: what would be wrong with
leaving the word REMUS in the error names, and simply updating the
descriptions ?

After all AFIACT the circumstances are very similar.  I don't think it
makes sense to require libxl to do something like
   rc = were_we_doing_colo_not_remus ? CHECKPOINT_BLAH : REMUS_BLAH;

Please to contradict me if I have misunderstood...

Ian.

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