On Fri, Apr 02, 2010 at 05:29:58PM -0400, Chris Lalancette wrote:
> On 04/02/2010 04:56 PM, Daniel Veillard wrote:
> > diff --git a/src/remote/remote_protocol.x b/src/remote/remote_protocol.x
> > index f86c7f1..0374f9a 100644
> > --- a/src/remote/remote_protocol.x
> > +++ b/src/remote/remote_protocol.x
> > @@ -1657,6 +1657,10 @@ struct remote_domain_has_managed_save_image_args {
> > unsigned flags;
> > };
> >
> > +struct remote_domain_has_managed_save_image_ret {
> > + int ret;
> > +};
> > +
>
> Hm, I don't think this is necessary. I think the return value is always going
> to be an int, so you should just be able to return -1, 0, or 1 in the remote
> driver as necessary.
My initial reaction was the same, then I looked at GetMaxVcpus and
other examples and converted the code accordingly.
> At least, that's how all of the other things that return
> numbers (such as virDomainNumDefinedDomains) work.
In the cases I checked and looked for it seems the network call()
return values is always 0 or -1, and looking at virDomainGetMaxVcpus()
it does use
struct remote_domain_get_max_vcpus_ret {
int num;
};
same for virDomainNumDomains()
and I also see
struct remote_num_of_defined_domains_ret {
int num;
};
in the src/remote/remote_protocol.x right now,
remoteNumOfDefinedDomains( does use remote_num_of_defined_domains_ret ret;
and remoteDispatchNumOfDefinedDomains() do use a
remote_num_of_defined_domains_ret *ret argument, so I'm wondering if we
are really looking at the same code.
In the case we just return 0 for success and -1 in case of error, we
clearly don't need the return structure, but all examples I checked for
an full int reurn used a structure. So I assume the change is needed,
or at least it's safe :-)
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