From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 09/25] tools/libx{l, c}: introduce should_checkpoint callback Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 16:09:50 -0500 Message-ID: <20160126210950.GA28211@char.us.oracle.com> References: <1451443075-27428-1-git-send-email-wency@cn.fujitsu.com> <1451443075-27428-10-git-send-email-wency@cn.fujitsu.com> <20160126205032.GD27940@char.us.oracle.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160126205032.GD27940@char.us.oracle.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: Wen Congyang Cc: Lars Kurth , Changlong Xie , Wei Liu , Ian Campbell , Andrew Cooper , Jiang Yunhong , Ian Jackson , xen devel , Dong Eddie , Gui Jianfeng , Shriram Rajagopalan , Yang Hongyang List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 03:50:32PM -0500, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 10:37:39AM +0800, Wen Congyang wrote: > > Under COLO, we are doing checkpoint on demand, if this > > callback returns 1, we will take another checkpoint. > > So 1 means OK. > > > 0 indicates unexpected error. > > Why not return an error? > > > > Signed-off-by: Yang Hongyang > > Signed-off-by: Wen Congyang > > --- > > tools/libxc/include/xenguest.h | 18 ++++++++++++++++++ > > tools/libxl/libxl_save_msgs_gen.pl | 7 ++++--- > > 2 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/tools/libxc/include/xenguest.h b/tools/libxc/include/xenguest.h > > index bd133af..88d6e13 100644 > > --- a/tools/libxc/include/xenguest.h > > +++ b/tools/libxc/include/xenguest.h > > @@ -62,6 +62,15 @@ struct save_callbacks { > > * 1: take another checkpoint */ > > int (*checkpoint)(void* data); > > > > + /* > > + * Called after the checkpoint callback. > > + * > > + * returns: > > + * 0: terminate checkpointing gracefully > > checkpointing terminated gracefully > > Why not return -EXX instead ? > > > + * 1: take another checkpoint Also perhaps the function instead of 'should_checkpoint' should just be called 'checkpoint' or 'do_checkpoint' ?