[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 COLOPre 07/26] libxc/restore: fix error handle of process_record





On 06/30/2015 05:45 PM, Yang Hongyang wrote:


On 06/30/2015 12:07 AM, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Thu, 2015-06-25 at 14:25 +0800, Yang Hongyang wrote:

ITYM "handling" in the subject. And perhaps "change" rather than "fix"?

If the err is RECORD_NOT_PROCESSED, and it is an optional record,
restore will still fail. There're two options to fix this,
   a, setting rc to 0 when it is an optional record.
   b, do the error handling in the caller.
We choose b because:
There will be another error type in COLO, which indicates a failover,
that needs to be handled in restore(), so moving the error handling out
to make the logic clearer...Otherwise, in process_record,
RECORD_NOT_PROCESSED is handled, and in restore another error type
returned from process_record is handled.

Signed-off-by: Yang Hongyang <yanghy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
CC: Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
CC: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx>
CC: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
  tools/libxc/xc_sr_restore.c | 28 ++++++++++++++--------------
  1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/tools/libxc/xc_sr_restore.c b/tools/libxc/xc_sr_restore.c
index fd45775..d5645e0 100644
--- a/tools/libxc/xc_sr_restore.c
+++ b/tools/libxc/xc_sr_restore.c
@@ -569,19 +569,6 @@ static int process_record(struct xc_sr_context *ctx,
struct xc_sr_record *rec)
      free(rec->data);
      rec->data = NULL;

-    if ( rc == RECORD_NOT_PROCESSED )
-    {
-        if ( rec->type & REC_TYPE_OPTIONAL )
-            DPRINTF("Ignoring optional record %#x (%s)",
-                    rec->type, rec_type_to_str(rec->type));
-        else
-        {
-            ERROR("Mandatory record %#x (%s) not handled",
-                  rec->type, rec_type_to_str(rec->type));
-            rc = -1;
-        }
-    }
-
      return rc;
  }

@@ -669,7 +656,20 @@ static int restore(struct xc_sr_context *ctx)

There is a second caller of process_record in handle_checkpoint, so this
change will result in a change of behaviour for that case, I think.

Ah, seems I missed the other caller, good catch, and I will fix it in the
next version.


If that is intentional then it ought to be mentioned in the commit log,

I rechecked the process_record in handle_checkpoint, it just return the error
code, finally, the error will be handled by the upper caller in restore(),
so it is intentional, I wll mention this in the commit log.

since otherwise it looks a lot like this change is supposed to result in
no overall difference.

Ian.


          else
          {
              rc = process_record(ctx, &rec);
-            if ( rc )
+            if ( rc == RECORD_NOT_PROCESSED )
+            {
+                if ( rec.type & REC_TYPE_OPTIONAL )
+                    DPRINTF("Ignoring optional record %#x (%s)",
+                            rec.type, rec_type_to_str(rec.type));
+                else
+                {
+                    ERROR("Mandatory record %#x (%s) not handled",
+                          rec.type, rec_type_to_str(rec.type));
+                    rc = -1;
+                    goto err;
+                }
+            }
+            else if ( rc )
                  goto err;
          }



.



--
Thanks,
Yang.

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


 


Rackspace

Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.