On 6/6/21 12:15 PM, Fabiano Fidêncio wrote:
> Currently `virt-host-validate` will fail whenever one of its calls fail,
> regardless of virHostValidateLevel set.
>
> This behaviour is not optimal and makes it not exactly reliable as a
> command line tool as other tools or scripts using it would have to check
> its output to figure out whether something really failed or if a warning
> was mistakenly treated as failure.
>
> With this change, the behaviour of whether to fail or not, is defined by
> the caller of those functions, based on the virHostValidateLevel passed
> to them.
>
> Signed-off-by: Fabiano Fidêncio <fabiano@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> tools/virt-host-validate-common.c | 129 ++++++++++++++++++++++--------
> 1 file changed, 94 insertions(+), 35 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/virt-host-validate-common.c b/tools/virt-host-validate-common.c
> index 6dd851f07d..2bf97bad75 100644
> --- a/tools/virt-host-validate-common.c
> +++ b/tools/virt-host-validate-common.c
> @@ -138,15 +138,21 @@ int virHostValidateDeviceExists(const char *hvname,
> virHostValidateLevel level,
> const char *hint)
> {
> + int ret = 0;
> +
> virHostMsgCheck(hvname, "if device %s exists", dev_name);
>
> if (access(dev_name, F_OK) < 0) {
> virHostMsgFail(level, "%s", hint);
> - return -1;
> + if (level == VIR_HOST_VALIDATE_FAIL)
> + ret = -1;
> + goto out;
> }
>
> virHostMsgPass();
> - return 0;
> +
> + out:
> + return ret;
> }
>
>
The patch, or idea it implements is correct. However, I think a lot of
these 'out' labels can be dropped and 'goto out' can be replaced with
'return -1' or 'return 0'. Does that work for you?
Michal
