On 7/10/19 6:50 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 7/10/19 2:02 AM, Peter Krempa wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 09, 2019 at 12:46:30 -0500, Eric Blake wrote:
>>> Even though we don't accept any flags, it is unfriendly to callers
>>> that use the modern API to have to fall back to the flag-free API.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Eric Blake <eblake@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> -vboxDomainSave(virDomainPtr dom, const char *path ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED)
>>> +vboxDomainSaveFlags(virDomainPtr dom, const char *path ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED,
>>> + const char *dxml, unsigned int flags)
>>> {
>>> vboxDriverPtr data = dom->conn->privateData;
>>> IConsole *console = NULL;
>>> @@ -564,6 +565,9 @@ vboxDomainSave(virDomainPtr dom, const char *path ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED)
>>> nsresult rc;
>>> int ret = -1;
>>>
>>> + virCheckFlags(0, -1);
>>> + virCheckNonNullArgReturn(dxml, -1);
>>
>> This reports: invalid argument: dxml in vboxDomainSave must not be NULL
>>
Revisiting this thread:
internal.h has:
virCheckNullArgGoto (complains if argument is not NULL)
virCheckNonNullArgReturn (complains if argument is NULL)
virCheckNonNullArgGoto (complains if argument is NULL)
but is missing virCheckNullArgReturn, which is the form I really meant
to use here. I have no idea if that missing macro is intentional, but it
would be easy enough to add.
>> I'm not certain that the internal function name makes sense to external
>> users.
>
> In which case I can hand-roll a more specific error instead of reusing
> the common macro. But I do see pre-existing uses of
> virCheckNonNullArgXXX in src/esx and src/vz prior to this patch, so it's
> not the first time we've used the common macros.
Directly calling virReportInvalidNonNullArg() would be the only way to
hand-roll this properly, but no one outside of internal.h and
src/util/virobject.c uses it. I'd prefer to sick with
virCheckNullArgReturn().
>>> +static int
>>> +vboxDomainSave(virDomainPtr dom, const char *path)
>>> +{
>>> + return vboxDomainSaveFlags(dom, path, NULL, 0);
>>
>> So, this passes NULL 'dxml' into vboxDomainSaveFlags which explicitly
>> rejects it. What's the point?
>>
>> Ah I see. Was the above supposed to be virCheckNullArgGoto?
>
> D'oh. Yes, I got it backwards. The function wants to succeed only if
> the user omitted the optional dxml argument.
>
--
Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc. +1-919-301-3226
Virtualization: qemu.org | libvirt.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
