Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] make domain_create() return a proper error code

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 03.09.12 at 10:47, Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-09-03 at 07:57 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> While triggered by the XSA-9 fix, this really is of more general use;
>> that fix just pointed out very sharply that the current situation
>> with all domain creation failures reported to user (tools) space as
>> -ENOMEM is very unfortunate (actively misleading users _and_ support
>> personnel).
>> 
>> Pull over the pointer <-> error code conversion infrastructure from
>> Linux, and use it in domain_create() and all it callers.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
>> 
>> --- a/xen/arch/arm/setup.c
>> +++ b/xen/arch/arm/setup.c
>> @@ -26,6 +26,7 @@
>>  #include <xen/serial.h>
>>  #include <xen/sched.h>
>>  #include <xen/console.h>
>> +#include <xen/err.h>
>>  #include <xen/init.h>
>>  #include <xen/irq.h>
>>  #include <xen/mm.h>
>> @@ -237,7 +238,7 @@ void __init start_xen(unsigned long boot
>>  
>>      /* Create initial domain 0. */
>>      dom0 = domain_create(0, 0, 0);
>> -    if ( dom0 == NULL )
>> +    if ( IS_ERR(dom0) )
>>              printk("domain_create failed\n");
>>      if ( (dom0 == NULL) || (alloc_dom0_vcpu0() == NULL) )
> 
> You probably wanted to change this one too?

Oh, indeed. I blindly implied the printk() there would be a
panic() already.

> I'm not sure the first message really buys much -- I'd be happy to nuke
> it too.

Yes, I would be in favor of that. Will you do the adjustment,
or shall I submit an incremental patch?

Jan


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