On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 04:19:48PM +0900, Nguyen Anh Quynh wrote: > On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 4:02 PM, Daniel Veillard<veillard@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: [...] > > Then having no error handling here would make sense, but currently > > if you pass a wrong argument you would just silently assume flags == > > VIR_MEMORY_PHYSICAL, so the patch as-is is not correct. > > Actually I dont think it is necessary to do sanity check inside the > driver, as it is already checked outside, inside virDomainMemoryPeek() > (I will fix the patch, as agreed above). > > So do you really want to check it again here? yes because a driver may support only a subset of the flags allowed by the API, it's a bit redundant but it's the status quo, and I think it makes sense. Daniel -- Daniel Veillard | libxml Gnome XML XSLT toolkit http://xmlsoft.org/ daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxx | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/ http://veillard.com/ | virtualization library http://libvirt.org/ -- Libvir-list mailing list Libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list