Cole Robinson wrote:
> Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 05:52:03PM +0200, Daniel Veillard wrote:
>>> There were a number of places where the object name was not not
>>> reported, based on the use I don't think the string could be NULL
>>> in any of those. I also fixed a few POOL error which were really
>>> VOLume ones.
>> There's a few places here still using VIR_ERR_INVALID_xxxxx which
>> could also be changed to VIR_ERR_NO_xxxx, since the INVALID errors
>> codes description is refering to bad pointer addresses.
>>
>> Aside from that, this looks good.
>>
>
> Kind of a tangent, but...
>
> Can we go back to using macros for all this duplicate validation? For
> example, the idiom:
>
> if (!vm) {
> char uuidstr[VIR_UUID_STRING_BUFLEN];
> virUUIDFormat(dom->uuid, uuidstr);
> qemudReportError(dom->conn, dom, NULL, VIR_ERR_NO_DOMAIN,
> _("no domain with matching uuid '%s'"),
> uuidstr);
> goto cleanup;
> }
>
> Takes up over 200 lines in qemu_driver.c. Sure, having a goto in a macro
> seems disgusting, but label names are used consistently so it hopefully
> wouldn't cause any problems.
>
> Would there be any objections to reintroducing macros for this stuff?
> Can CIL handle macros when doing the lock checking?
Yeah, I have to agree with Dan here. Having macros that change code flow is
just evil when you are trying to read the code later on.
--
Chris Lalancette
--
Libvir-list mailing list
Libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list