Il 02/10/2012 01:05, Luiz Capitulino ha scritto:
> On Mon, 01 Oct 2012 21:07:52 +0200
> Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> Il 01/10/2012 19:17, Luiz Capitulino ha scritto:
>>>>> if (bind(sock, (struct sockaddr*) &un, sizeof(un)) < 0) {
>>>>> - fprintf(stderr, "bind(unix:%s): %s\n", un.sun_path,
>>>>> strerror(errno));
>>>>> + error_set(errp, QERR_SOCKET_BIND_FAILED);
>>> This drops error information, making the error message worse. I believe
>>> you have a reason to not use error_setg()?
>>
>> I was waiting for the end of the discussion on errno to add
>> error_setg_errno.
>
> The decision was to not add errno now, right?
I don't remember, but we can still add a function that takes an errno
value and tacks on the strerror(errno).
>>> Also, I see that in some hunks you do something like:
>>>
>>> - fd = unix_listen_opts(opts);
>>> + fd = unix_listen_opts(opts, NULL);
>>>
>>> This will break printing the error message to the user. It's fine by me if
>>> you do this only temporarily (ie. this is fixed by the next or a later
>>> patch),
>>> but want to double check that you're aware of it.
>>
>> I want to avoid super-large patch series, so I would prefer to fix it
>> later in the 1.3 development.
>
> We at least need to have the patches flying, I don't think it's ok to
> break error reporting like that.
I disagree because we still have two months before release, but I'll see
what I can do.
Paolo
