On 10/24/11 11:14 AM, "Stefan Berger" <stefanb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 10/20/2011 01:46 PM, Roopa Prabhu wrote:
>> From: Roopa Prabhu<roprabhu@xxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> Fixes some cases where 1 was being returned instead of -1.
>> There are still some inconsistencies in the file with respect
>> to what the return variable is initialized to. Can be fixed
>> as a separate patch if needed. The scope of this patch is just
>> to fix the return value 1. Did some basic sanity test.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Roopa Prabhu<roprabhu@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Reported-by: Eric Blake<eblake@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> src/util/macvtap.c | 22 ++++++++--------------
>> 1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>>
>>
>> diff --git a/src/util/macvtap.c b/src/util/macvtap.c
>> index 7fd6eb5..f8b9d55 100644
>> --- a/src/util/macvtap.c
>> +++ b/src/util/macvtap.c
>> @@ -480,7 +480,7 @@ getPortProfileStatus(struct nlattr **tb, int32_t vf,
>> bool is8021Qbg,
>> uint16_t *status)
>> {
>> - int rc = 1;
>> + int rc = -1;
>> const char *msg = NULL;
>> struct nlattr *tb_port[IFLA_PORT_MAX + 1] = { NULL, };
>>
>> @@ -806,7 +806,7 @@ sassmann@xxxxxxxxxx(bool nltarget_kernel,
>> _("error %d during port-profile setlink on "
>> "interface %s (%d)"),
>> status, ifname, ifindex);
>> - rc = 1;
>> + rc = -1;
>> break;
>> }
>>
> In this function we later on return a -ETIMEDOUT. The -1 doesn't overlap
> with it, but I am wondering whether we should return -EFAULT in the
> places of -1 now ?
>
Instead of defaulting to -EFAULT, shall I just add a function to map the
port profile/VDP status codes to closest errno (with default being unknown
error) and use that instead ?.
Also, for some reason we are reporting EINVAL in the virReportSystemError
just above it. EINVAL also does not seem right there.
I can fix it.
Thanks,
Roopa
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list