Re: [PATCH v2 for 4.5] xl: Return proper error codes for block-attach and block-detach

[George Dunlap <george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 11/20/2014 03:47 PM, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-11-17 at 12:36 +0000, George Dunlap wrote:
>> On 11/14/2014 11:12 AM, Ian Campbell wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2014-11-13 at 19:04 +0000, George Dunlap wrote:
>>>> Return proper error codes on failure so that scripts can tell
>>>> whether the command completed properly or not.
>>>> 
>>>> Also while we're at it, normalize init and dispose of 
>>>> libxl_device_disk structures.  This means calling init and
>>>> dispose in the actual functions where they are declared.
>>>> 
>>>> This in turn means changing parse_disk_config_multistring()
>>>> to not call libxl_device_disk_init.  And that in turn means
>>>> changes to callers of parse_disk_config().
>>>> 
>>>> It also means removing libxl_device_disk_init() from 
>>>> libxl.c:libxl_vdev_to_device_disk().  This is only called
>>>> from xl_cmdimpl.c.
>>>> 
>>>> Signed-off-by: George Dunlap <george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com> 
>>>> --- CC: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com> CC: Ian
>>>> Jackson <ian.jackson@citrix.com> CC: Wei Liu
>>>> <wei.liu2@citrix.com> CC: Konrad Wilk
>>>> <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>
>>>> 
>>>> Release justification: This is a bug fix.  It's a fairly
>>>> minor one, but it's also a very simple one.
>>>> 
>>>> v2: - Restructure functions to make sure init and dispose are
>>>> properly called.
>>> Sadly this bit has somewhat reduced the truth of the second
>>> half of your release justification, since the patch is a fair
>>> bit more subtle though. Although IMHO it hasn't invalidated the
>>> case for taking the patch for 4.5 (modulo comments below).
>> 
>> Well, I think we can take the hacky short-term fix I posted
>> before, which is simple, and do a proper fix after the 4.6 dev
>> window opens up; or we can do a more complete fix now.
> 
> Specifically the "hacky short-term fix" is 
> <1415813493-25330-1-git-send-email-george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com> ?

Yes -- the one you found somewhat wanting. :-)

> I could live with that, perhaps with the commit log explaining that
> a little.

Do you want to add that, or shall I add it and re-submit?

 -George

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1

iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJUbg4KAAoJELIVx6fHhBvtXvQH/1Lg2NPR1bPElcjninQ8Qv51
deoj9lZKeMvRECSM58CTrQHo83+9jqhb9URXDRMxJ2DQqK0UTTqzNkpiolwojLq4
PkGNy5Pwlfp35meYaVdADjnwatb05+ZM/kCGVlfF70aok3Das6BdXL82MT0Btfvj
Z+0GBxNgmmkV+WdOvuKzQx0Zyq6vWpRXPz4EjyU5ypm4DSkPw+xbH65Ja/d+uxhD
il06GKvxxnbAFa7zvdGavwkxpPJmp8s4XAheqwRTRtTZMubiHUm/Ycul/774P81i
4/A94owTU1BN10FWa1aSqszHY+M2rKZXAgxUrqNPzyPSRbYn4+mASORB1+WEpDo=
=1dUr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----