On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 15:38:50 -0600 Eric Blake <eblake@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 03/02/2011 06:09 PM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > >>From b92569080a25bf0029d637327a87372bff071fae Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > > From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2011 09:20:36 +0900 > > Subject: [PATCH 1/5] report OOMError in virDomainDiskInsert() > > > > Now, virDomainDiskInsert() returns -1 at memory allocation > > failure but it should call virReportOOMError() by itself. > > > > Signed-off-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > src/conf/domain_conf.c | 4 +++- > > src/xen/xm_internal.c | 4 +--- > > 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > This patch looks accurate, but lacks justification (why can't all > callers continue to call virReportOOMError() on failure)? I'm not sure > whether to apply it without knowing why it is needed, as it just looks > like code motion churn in isolation. > just comes from my experiece. Ok, calls in the caller side. Thanks, -Kame -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list