Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > On Tue, Feb 02, 2010 at 11:58:44AM +0100, Jim Meyering wrote: >> coverity complained (rightly) about the risk of closing a negative >> file descriptor. However, the real problem was the missing test >> for a failed "accept" call. I'm not 100% sure that a failed >> accept call deserves to provoke a "goto cleanup", but doing that >> is consistent with what the nearby code does upon epoll_ctl failure. > > This isn't correct because the incoming client can quit between the > time of poll() indicating its presence, and accept() trying to process > it. This is an expected non-fatal scenario, so it should just be > ignored without quitting. epoll_ctl() by comparison is a fatal system > error, so has to be handled as an unrecoverable error Ok, so some errno values are ignorable. Do you also want to ignore the likes of EMFILE, ENFILE, EPERM, etc? Otherwise, I propose to enumerate "ignorable-errno" values and treat any others as unrecoverable. Do you know which errno values should be ignored? -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list