On Tue, 14 May 2019 02:12:35 -0400 Yan Zhao <yan.y.zhao@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 09:28:04PM +0800, Erik Skultety wrote: > > In case of libvirt checking the compatibility, it won't matter how good the > > error message in the kernel log is and regardless of how many error states you > > want to handle, libvirt's only limited to errno here, since we're going to do > > plain read/write, so our internal error message returned to the user is only > > going to contain what the errno says - okay, of course we can (and we DO) > > provide libvirt specific string, further specifying the error but like I > > mentioned, depending on how many error cases we want to distinguish this may be > > hard for anyone to figure out solely on the error code, as apps will most > > probably not parse the > > logs. > > > > Regards, > > Erik > hi Erik > do you mean you are agreeing on defining common errors and only returning errno? > > e.g. > #define ENOMIGRATION 140 /* device not supporting migration */ > #define EUNATCH 49 /* software version not match */ > #define EHWNM 142 /* hardware not matching*/ Defining custom error codes is probably not such a good idea... can we match to common error codes instead? Do we have a good idea about common error categories, anyway? (Btw: does libvirt do a generic error-to-description translation, or does it match to the context? I.e., can libvirt translate well-defined error codes to a useful message for a specific case?)
