Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 8/9] xl: make error reporting of cpupool subcommands consistent

[Wei Liu <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 03:13:33PM +0000, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-03-11 at 15:04 +0000, Wei Liu wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 02:52:31PM +0000, Ian Campbell wrote:
> 
> > > I think having more consistent exist codes from xl would be nice, but I
> > > don't think the libxl error codes are the ones to use, since they don't
> > > really map semantically onto what I would expect a CLI tool to fail with
> > > (I'm not sure what I would expect though, something a bit higher level
> > > on a command specific basis probably).
> > > 
> > 
> > I agree that libxl error codes are not the ones to use.
> > 
> > Since we haven't explicitly defined any return value in xl manpage, I
> > think we should use EXIT_SUCCESS and EXIT_FAILURE per exit(3). 
> >
> I like the idea.
> 
> > They are
> > more appropriate then 0 and 1.
> > 
> Indeed. However, as far as this patch is concerned, what should I do?
> 
>  a) drop it, and leave libxl error code in place, until we convert 
>     everything to EXIT_SUCCESS/FAILURE
>  b) keep it, we'll convert the 0/1 to EXIT_SUCCESS/FAILURE in later
>     patch(es)
>  c) turn libxl error codes into EXIT_SUCCESS/FAILURE at least for this
>     functions, since I'm touching them, the rest will come with later
>     patch(es)
> ?
> 
> My opinion, I don't like c), so I'd go for either a) or b), with a
> slight preference for b).
> 

I think b) is good.

> Let me know...
> 
> Regards,
> Dario



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