Re: [v5][PATCH 11/16] tools/libxl: detect and avoid conflicts with RDM

["Chen, Tiejun" <tiejun.chen@intel.com>]

On 2015/7/7 22:57, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Chen, Tiejun writes ("Re: [v5][PATCH 11/16] tools/libxl: detect and avoid conflicts with RDM"):
>> On 2015/7/7 19:57, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>> I think the error handling here is wrong.  Certainly `rc' should not
>>> be used for a libxc return.
>>
>> Nope, we don't return rc directly. In any case of error, rc is reset as
>> "ERROR_FAIL" finally.
>
> Did you see
>
>>> See tools/libxl/CODING_STYLE.  I know that much of the existing code
>>> uses rc for libxc returns but this is deprecated, and please don't
>>> make more of it.
>
> this ?
>

Are you saying this? We should use 'r' as the return value of libxc call

     int rc = 0, r;

     r = xc_reserved_device_memory_map(CTX->xch, flag, seg, bus, devfn,
                                       NULL, nr_entries);
     assert(r <= 0);
     /* "0" means we have no any rdm entry. */
     if (!r) goto out;

Thanks
Tiejun