On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 11:37:12AM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 07/25/2013 06:20 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > From: "Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Instead of requiring drivers to use a combination of calls
> > to virCgroupNewDetect and virCgroupIsValidMachine, combine
> > the two into virCgroupNewDetectMachine
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Daniel P. Berrange <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > src/libvirt_private.syms | 1 +
> > src/lxc/lxc_process.c | 20 ++++++++------------
> > src/qemu/qemu_cgroup.c | 16 ++++------------
> > src/util/vircgroup.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++
> > src/util/vircgroup.h | 5 +++++
> > 5 files changed, 40 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
>
> > @@ -1575,6 +1575,28 @@ int virCgroupNewDetect(pid_t pid ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED,
> > }
> > #endif
> >
> > +/*
> > + * Returns 0 on success, -1 on fatal error, -2 on no valid cgroup
> > + */
> > +int virCgroupNewDetectMachine(const char *name,
> > + const char *drivername,
> > + pid_t pid,
> > + virCgroupPtr *group)
> > +{
> > + if (virCgroupNewDetect(pid, group) < 0) {
> > + if (virCgroupNewIgnoreError())
> > + return 0;
> > + return -1;
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (!virCgroupIsValidMachineGroup(*group, name, drivername)) {
> > + virCgroupFree(group);
> > + return 0;
>
> Huh? This says you are returning success. Also, none of the lxc or qemu
> callers checked for a -2 return; do you really need the differentiated
> return type?
Opps the comment is wrong. I originally had it returning -2, but I
removed that and just useed '0' and let the caller check if 'group != NULL'
instead.
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