On 08/09/2012 11:34 PM, Laine Stump wrote: > On 08/09/2012 09:44 AM, Peter Krempa wrote: >> On 08/09/12 15:38, Eric Blake wrote: >>> On 08/09/2012 07:31 AM, Peter Krempa wrote: >>>> This patch introduces a new error code VIR_ERR_OPERATION_UNSUPPORTED to >>>> mark error messages regarding operations that failed due to lack of >>>> support on the hypervisor or other than libvirt issues. >>>> >>> In the past, we have used VIR_ERR_CONFIG_UNSUPPORTED for messages about >>> a qemu binary that doesn't support something; would that be any better >>> than inventing a new error here? Or are all of those errors worth >>> switching over to this new code? >> >> Using VIR_ERR_CONFIG_UNSUPPORTED seems reasonable to me in cases where >> the unsupported feature is requested by the user. Eg. when setting >> something or requesting some weird configuration or even if the >> hypervisor doesn't support it. >> >> On the other hand It doesn't make sense to me to use it on getter-type >> APIs where the user isn't setting anything just wants some information >> back. In this case I'd rather like to see a new message, as stating >> that config isn't supported is a little bit strange. Makes sense to me - the user is not trying to change config, but is merely being informed that the information they requested is not available. >> >>> >>> As written, your patch seems fine, but only if we agree that a new error >>> is the way to go. > > There was already a short discussion about this related to another patch: > > https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2012-August/msg00589.html > > Peter wrote this patch in response to that discussion. > > My vote is in favor of the new code. Sounds like we've got enough arguments in favor of the new code; go ahead and push the new error type. -- Eric Blake eblake@xxxxxxxxxx +1-919-301-3266 Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list