From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Keir Fraser <keir@xensource.com>
Subject: Re: return value checking on multicalls
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 16:00:12 +0000
Message-ID: <C21DCC8C.B793%keir@xensource.com>
References: <45F828EB.76E4.0078.0@novell.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com>
In-Reply-To: <45F828EB.76E4.0078.0@novell.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
To: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@novell.com>, xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On 14/3/07 15:55, "Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@novell.com> wrote:

> Many places currently don't even check HYPERVISOR_multicall()'s return
> value, not to speak of checking the individual status codes. Would it be
> acceptable to add an argument to this function to request to either fold
> all status values into a global success code, or to force BUG_ON() each
> individual status. Or should I rather add a new function with described
> behavior? Or are there other suggestions?

I think a separate function would be neater, but I'm not sure what you'd
call it. :-) The general idea seems a good one.

 -- Keir