On 08/13/2012 10:33 AM, Corey Bryant wrote: >> The only way it could fail is if we are trying to add an fd that is >> already in the set, or if we don't find mon_fdset; both of which would >> indicate logic bugs earlier in our program. Would it be worth asserting >> that these conditions are impossible, and making this function return >> void (the addition is always successful if it returns, since g_malloc0 >> aborts rather than failing with ENOMEM)? > > I think what I did in v10 should suffice. I didn't update > monitor_fdset_dup_fd_add(), but I did update the calling code. If the > call fails then I set errno to EINVAL since (unless there's a bug) the > only possible error is that the fdset ID was non-existent. > > It makes sense to add the asserts, but at this point I'd like to stick > with what we have in v10 if that's ok. The problems of reading my inbox in FIFO order - I see now that v10 landed before my comments on v9 :) Yes, what you did in v10 is probably fine. -- 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