Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH RFC 9/9] libxl: introduce specific error codes in libxl_device_nic_add

[Rob Hoes <Rob.Hoes@xxxxxxxxxx>]

> On 24 Jun 2015, at 16:11, Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> Rob Hoes writes ("[PATCH RFC 9/9] libxl: introduce specific error codes in 
> libxl_device_nic_add"):
>> Signed-off-by: Rob Hoes <rob.hoes@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ...    
>> +    # NIC parameters could not be determined
>> +    (ENUM_PREV, "NIC_SCRIPT_UNDETERMINED"),
>> +    (ENUM_PREV, "NIC_DEVID_UNDETERMINED"),
> 
> Perhaps we could have a coherent naming scheme ?  These are invalid
> parameter errors, aren't they ?  That is, libxl's caller specified
> something wrong.
> 
> So maybe
>  INVALID_NIC_SCRIPT_UNDETERMINED
> ?
> 

Also see my other reply on PATCH 8/9. I think that the distinction between 
UNDETERMINED and INVALID is useful.

I agree that a naming scheme would be good to have. Iâve tried to do that at 
least for the codes related to libxl_device_<type> structures, where Iâve 
included <device_type>_<field> in the error code, plus a condition (description 
of the problem) such as INVAL or UNDETERMINED.

Rob

> What do others think ?
> 
> Ian.

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