On Fri, 7 Jan 2022, Michal Prívozník wrote:
> On 1/7/22 10:09, Ani Sinha wrote:
> > Currently virProcessGetStatInfo() always returns success and only logs error
> > when it is unable to parse the data. Make this function actually report the
> > error and return a negative value in this error scenario.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ani Sinha <ani@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > src/util/virprocess.c | 6 +++++-
> > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/src/util/virprocess.c b/src/util/virprocess.c
> > index c74bd16fe6..b9f498d5d8 100644
> > --- a/src/util/virprocess.c
> > +++ b/src/util/virprocess.c
> > @@ -1783,7 +1783,11 @@ virProcessGetStatInfo(unsigned long long *cpuTime,
> > virStrToLong_ullp(proc_stat[VIR_PROCESS_STAT_STIME], NULL, 10, &systime) < 0 ||
> > virStrToLong_l(proc_stat[VIR_PROCESS_STAT_RSS], NULL, 10, &rss) < 0 ||
> > virStrToLong_i(proc_stat[VIR_PROCESS_STAT_PROCESSOR], NULL, 10, &cpu) < 0) {
> > - VIR_WARN("cannot parse process status data");
> > + virReportError(VIR_ERR_INTERNAL_ERROR,
> > + _("cannot parse process status data for pid '%d/%d'"),
> > + (int) pid, (int) tid);
> > +
> > + return -1;
> > }
> >
> > /* We got jiffies
>
> Couple of problems with this patch as is. I'm not against the idea of
> reporting an error here.
Good. now we are moving in the right direction.
But couple of things needs to be addressed first:
>
> 1) Currently, all callers check for retval and report an error if -1 was
> returned. This means, that even though this new message is reported it
> is immediately overwritten in caller.
Let me fix the callers and send an updated patch. Meanwhile ...
>
> 2) The non-linux implementation now has to report error too. I believe
> it's obvious why from our previous discussion this morning.
Maybe you can fix your patch.
