Re: [PATCH] libxen-3.0 (libxc rewrite)

[Anthony Liguori <aliguori@us.ibm.com>]

Christian Limpach wrote:

>I think it does what I expect.  And it seems to work for a lot of
>libraries just fine.  By not using the global errno, you're preventing
>people from using perror, warn, err and the likes.  Also some of the
>interfaces in your library are slightly awkward because you're wasting
>the return parameter to return the failure reason.
>  
>
You're right.  Some of the interfaces are a little awkward (especially 
the memory mapping ones).  It seemed like a reasonable trade-off to make 
though.

>Even if we don't use the global errno, I'm still wondering why you're
>returning -errno and not errno?
>  
>
Good question.  I guess since we never returned > 0 it would be 
reasonable to return errno instead of -errno.  -errno is the convention 
used in the Linux kernel.  That's what I was modelling.

Regards,
Anthony Liguori

>    christian
>
>
>  
>



-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: 2005 Windows Mobile Application Contest
Submit applications for Windows Mobile(tm)-based Pocket PCs or Smartphones
for the chance to win $25,000 and application distribution. Enter today at
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6882&alloc_id=15148&op=click