From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] dom variable error handled in Xenstore
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 12:03:53 +0000
Message-ID: <1446465833.3088.21.camel@citrix.com>
References: <1445991143-9165-1-git-send-email-comethalley61@gmail.com>
	<1445994047.2937.238.camel@citrix.com>
	<CAAbK42_w=9UxpJcPTkRvT__dtOM9y+zd1_v7zdkdpm0KE6p3xQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20151029100728.GB8097@zion.uk.xensource.com>
	<1446113517.28782.50.camel@citrix.com>
	<CAAbK42_VEpvM+1_KnJ5GXY859Afv03iVcT0h6YU2dzhT7yZUjw@mail.gmail.com>
	<1446215323.28782.120.camel@citrix.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
Received: from mail6.bemta14.messagelabs.com ([193.109.254.103])
	by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <prvs=741ac2d6c=Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>)
	id 1ZtDqE-00038h-OK
	for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Mon, 02 Nov 2015 12:04:02 +0000
In-Reply-To: <1446215323.28782.120.camel@citrix.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Dario Faggioli <dario.faggioli@citrix.com>, Lasya Venneti <comethalley61@gmail.com>
Cc: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>, George Dunlap <george.dunlap@citrix.com>, Lars Kurth <lars.kurth@citrix.com>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

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.