Re: [PATCH v4] libxl: introduce LIBXL_DOMAIN_TYPE_INVALID

[Christoph Egger <Christoph.Egger@amd.com>]

On 05/25/12 16:00, Ian Campbell wrote:

> On Fri, 2012-05-25 at 14:10 +0100, Dario Faggioli wrote:
>> On Fri, 2012-05-25 at 12:03 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>> Ian Campbell writes ("Re: [PATCH v4] libxl: introduce LIBXL_DOMAIN_TYPE_INVALID"):
>>>> so having arranged to call that function at the right time we can assume
>>>> that type is a sensible value, and indeed setdefault makes this the
>>>> case.
>>>
>>> Right.
>>>
>> Ok.
>>
>>> The other situation where we can get _INVALID is if libxl__domain_type
>>> fails, which it can do.
>>>
>>> I think this should be handled by having places which call
>>> libxl__domain_type abandon operation and return an error if the
>>> libxl__domain_type fails.
>>>
>>> If this is done, then general variables, parameters, etc. within libxl
>>> which are supposed to contain a libxl_domain_type will never contain
>>> _INVALID.
>>>
>> I like this. I'll chase each call to that function and have the calle
>> failing if a DOMAIN_TYPE_INVALID is returned. Then, if I go this way,
>> can I also nuke both the 'case DOMAIN_TYPE_INVALID' _and_ the default
>> clauses from everywhere? I seem to think I could...
> 
> iff the compiler is smart enough to realise that in the type == INVALID
> case you have returned already before reaching the switch statement,
> otherwise you will need to have "case INVALID: abort()".


What is latest status of this patch? When will it go upstream?

> 
>>
>> Thanks and Regards,
>> Daio


-- 
---to satisfy European Law for business letters:
Advanced Micro Devices GmbH
Einsteinring 24, 85689 Dornach b. Muenchen
Geschaeftsfuehrer: Alberto Bozzo, Andrew Bowd
Sitz: Dornach, Gemeinde Aschheim, Landkreis Muenchen
Registergericht Muenchen, HRB Nr. 43632