|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xl: Fix CHK_ERRNO
On 10/12/13 15:13, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Andrew Cooper writes ("Re: [PATCH] xl: Fix CHK_ERRNO"):
>> On 09/12/13 14:55, Ian Campbell wrote:
>>> [Andrew Cooper:]
>>>> Split the macro into two; CHK_ERRNO() for calls which return -1
>>>> and set errno on error, and CHK_POSERRNO() for calls which return
>>>> a positive errno.
> This is a bit confusing. Why do you write "a _positive_ errno"
> (emph. mine) ? errno values are always positive. In the libxl LOG*
> macros we call a style where an errno value is passed explicitly
> "ERRNOVAL".
>
> 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); \
> } \
> })
>
> This is what I would call CHK_ERRNOVAL. (But I think it should
> abort() if the returned value is negative, not treat it as success!)
>
>>> Would be better to call POSERRNO LIBXLERR or something, rather than
>>> accidentally imply that it was related to "errno" somehow, I think.
> I think there should be a CHK_LIBXL or something too, but that's not
> needed right now because all the CHK_* call sites are either
> (return -1, set errno) or (return errno value).
>
> I think the former macro would better be called CHK_SYSCALL, because
> it's the system call return convention. CHK_ERRNO would do.
>
> Ian.
In v2 of the patch, CHK_POSERRNO was renamed to CHK_LIBXLERR, but I can
certainly extend it to abort() if negative.
I can also rename CHK_ERRNO to CHK_SYSCALL which does make it somewhat
more descriptive.
~Andrew
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
![]() |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |