On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 12:20:51PM +0100, Jiri Denemark wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 15:24:01 +0000, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > From: "Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Introduce a local object virIdentity for managing security
> > attributes used to form a client application's identity.
> > Instances of this object are intended to be used as if they
> > were immutable, once created & populated with attributes
> >
> ...
> > diff --git a/src/util/virerror.c b/src/util/virerror.c
> > index 40c3b25..8cb8548 100644
> > --- a/src/util/virerror.c
> > +++ b/src/util/virerror.c
> > @@ -118,6 +118,7 @@ VIR_ENUM_IMPL(virErrorDomain, VIR_ERR_DOMAIN_LAST,
> > "SSH transport layer", /* 50 */
> > "Lock Space",
> > "Init control",
> > + "Identity",
> > )
> >
> >
> > @@ -1213,6 +1214,12 @@ virErrorMsg(virErrorNumber error, const char *info)
> > else
> > errmsg = _("resource busy %s");
> > break;
> > + case VIR_ERR_INVALID_IDENTITY:
> > + if (info == NULL)
> > + errmsg = _("invalid identity");
> > + else
> > + errmsg = _("invalid identity %s");
> > + break;
>
> This doesn't seem to be used anywhere yet but would
> "invalid identity: %s" result in better error messages?
Oh this is left over from earlier versions fo the patch. I'll
kill it now.
>
> > }
> > return errmsg;
> > }
> > diff --git a/src/util/viridentity.c b/src/util/viridentity.c
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 0000000..7ebf851
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/src/util/viridentity.c
> ...
> > +/**
> > + * virIdentityIsEqual:
> > + * @identA: the first identity
> > + * @identB: the second identity
> > + *
> > + * Compares every attribute in @identA and @identB
> > + * to determine if they refer to the same identity
> > + *
> > + * Returns 1 if they are equal, 0 if not equal or -1 on error
> > + */
> > +int virIdentityIsEqual(virIdentityPtr identA,
> > + virIdentityPtr identB)
> > +{
> > + int ret = 0;
> > + size_t i;
> > + VIR_DEBUG("identA=%p identB=%p", identA, identB);
> > +
> > + for (i = 0 ; i < VIR_IDENTITY_ATTR_LAST ; i++) {
> > + if (STRNEQ_NULLABLE(identA->attrs[i],
> > + identB->attrs[i]))
> > + goto cleanup;
> > + }
> > +
> > + ret = 1;
> > +cleanup:
> > + return ret;
> > +}
>
> This API never fails, so why do we need to document unreachable -1 on
> error and use int rather than bool? Especially when you use this API as
> if it was just returning true/false.
Again, left over cruft from earlier versions.
Daniel
--
|: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list