From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Cooper Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 COLOPre 01/13] libxc/restore: fix error handle of process_record Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2015 10:39:32 +0100 Message-ID: <557562D4.5000904@citrix.com> References: <1433734997-26570-1-git-send-email-yanghy@cn.fujitsu.com> <1433734997-26570-2-git-send-email-yanghy@cn.fujitsu.com> <55755F3D.1090102@citrix.com> <55756266.7010001@cn.fujitsu.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <55756266.7010001@cn.fujitsu.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Yang Hongyang , xen-devel@lists.xen.org Cc: wei.liu2@citrix.com, ian.campbell@citrix.com, wency@cn.fujitsu.com, ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com, yunhong.jiang@intel.com, eddie.dong@intel.com, guijianfeng@cn.fujitsu.com, rshriram@cs.ubc.ca List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 08/06/15 10:37, Yang Hongyang wrote: > > > On 06/08/2015 05:24 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote: >> On 08/06/15 04:43, Yang Hongyang wrote: >>> If the err is RECORD_NOT_PROCESSED, and it is an optional record, >>> restore will still fail. The patch fix this. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Yang Hongyang >>> CC: Ian Campbell >>> CC: Ian Jackson >>> CC: Wei Liu >>> CC: Andrew Cooper >>> --- >>> tools/libxc/xc_sr_restore.c | 28 ++++++++++++++-------------- >>> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/tools/libxc/xc_sr_restore.c b/tools/libxc/xc_sr_restore.c >>> index 9e27dba..2d2edd3 100644 >>> --- a/tools/libxc/xc_sr_restore.c >>> +++ b/tools/libxc/xc_sr_restore.c >>> @@ -560,19 +560,6 @@ static int process_record(struct xc_sr_context >>> *ctx, struct xc_sr_record *rec) >>> free(rec->data); >>> rec->data = NULL; >>> >>> - if ( rc == RECORD_NOT_PROCESSED ) >>> - { >>> - if ( rec->type & REC_TYPE_OPTIONAL ) >>> - DPRINTF("Ignoring optional record %#x (%s)", >>> - rec->type, rec_type_to_str(rec->type)); >> >> You would be best setting rc to 0 here, rather than moving the logic out >> of process_record(). > > There will be another error type in COLO, which indicates a failover, > that > needs to be handled in restore(), so I moved the error handling down to > avoid duplex code...Otherwise, in process_record, RECORD_NOT_PROCESSED is > handled, and in restore another error type returned from > process_record is > handled... Ah ok - I will wait till I get that far through the series. ~Andrew > >> >> ~Andrew >> >>> - else >>> - { >>> - ERROR("Mandatory record %#x (%s) not handled", >>> - rec->type, rec_type_to_str(rec->type)); >>> - rc = -1; >>> - } >>> - } >>> - >>> return rc; >>> } >>> >>> @@ -678,7 +665,20 @@ static int restore(struct xc_sr_context *ctx) >>> else >>> { >>> rc = process_record(ctx, &rec); >>> - if ( rc ) >>> + if ( rc == RECORD_NOT_PROCESSED ) >>> + { >>> + if ( rec.type & REC_TYPE_OPTIONAL ) >>> + DPRINTF("Ignoring optional record %#x (%s)", >>> + rec.type, rec_type_to_str(rec.type)); >>> + else >>> + { >>> + ERROR("Mandatory record %#x (%s) not handled", >>> + rec.type, rec_type_to_str(rec.type)); >>> + rc = -1; >>> + goto err; >>> + } >>> + } >>> + else if ( rc ) >>> goto err; >>> } >>> >> >> . >> >