Re: [PATCH v3] dom variable error handled in Xenstore

[Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>]

On Fri, 2015-10-30 at 15:28 +0100, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-10-29 at 20:28 +0530, Lasya Venneti wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > On 29 October 2015 at 15:41, Dario Faggioli <
> > dario.faggioli@citrix.com> wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2015-10-29 at 10:07 +0000, Wei Liu wrote:
> 
> > > > As for xc_dom_allocate, the only failure path at the moment is
> > > malloc
> > > > failure, which would be appropriate to use ENOMEM to represent.
> > > > 
> > > > However if it causes too many faffs, you can just set rv to -1
> > > and
> > > > return to caller. I think the main point is to handle the error,
> > > > either
> > > > -1 or ENOMEM is fine by me.
> > > > 
> > > Agreed but, I personally prefer -1, for consistency. :-)
> > > 
> > So should I proceed with -1? In that case I don't need to add the
> > header...
> >  
> If you're still up for this (and for the other patch, which would be
> great!), yes, go for -1.

Per my reply to v1 (still catching up on email backlog) yes, -1 is the
correct thing to use here. ENOMEM is actively wrong.

Ian.