On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 02:52:31PM +, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-03-09 at 11:01 +, Wei Liu wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 06, 2015 at 06:21:59PM +0100, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> > > with the rest of the file, where we return 1 on 0, rather
> > > than using libxl error codes.
> > >
> >
> > W
On Wed, 2015-03-11 at 16:24 +, Wei Liu wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 04:22:00PM +, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> > On Wed, 2015-03-11 at 15:23 +, Wei Liu wrote:
> > > I think b) is good.
> > >
> > Right. It was the only comment you made on this patch... does that means
> > I can stick yo
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 04:22:00PM +, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-03-11 at 15:23 +, Wei Liu wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 03:13:33PM +, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2015-03-11 at 15:04 +, Wei Liu wrote:
>
> > > > Since we haven't explicitly defined any return v
On Wed, 2015-03-11 at 15:23 +, Wei Liu wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 03:13:33PM +, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> > On Wed, 2015-03-11 at 15:04 +, Wei Liu wrote:
> > > Since we haven't explicitly defined any return value in xl manpage, I
> > > think we should use EXIT_SUCCESS and EXIT_FAIL
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 03:13:33PM +, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-03-11 at 15:04 +, Wei Liu wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 02:52:31PM +, Ian Campbell wrote:
>
> > > I think having more consistent exist codes from xl would be nice, but I
> > > don't think the libxl error co
On Wed, 2015-03-11 at 15:04 +, Wei Liu wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 02:52:31PM +, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > I think having more consistent exist codes from xl would be nice, but I
> > don't think the libxl error codes are the ones to use, since they don't
> > really map semantically onto
On Wed, 2015-03-11 at 15:04 +, Wei Liu wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 02:52:31PM +, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Mon, 2015-03-09 at 11:01 +, Wei Liu wrote:
> > > On Fri, Mar 06, 2015 at 06:21:59PM +0100, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> > > > with the rest of the file, where we return 1 on 0, ra
On Mon, 2015-03-09 at 11:01 +, Wei Liu wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 06, 2015 at 06:21:59PM +0100, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> > with the rest of the file, where we return 1 on 0, rather
> > than using libxl error codes.
> >
>
> While being consistent is good I'm not very sure if we should go for 0/1
> ra
On Mon, 2015-03-09 at 11:01 +, Wei Liu wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 06, 2015 at 06:21:59PM +0100, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> > with the rest of the file, where we return 1 on 0, rather
> > than using libxl error codes.
> >
>
> While being consistent is good I'm not very sure if we should go for 0/1
> ra
On Fri, Mar 06, 2015 at 06:21:59PM +0100, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> with the rest of the file, where we return 1 on 0, rather
> than using libxl error codes.
>
While being consistent is good I'm not very sure if we should go for 0/1
rather than libxl error codes. I vaguely remember at some point we
with the rest of the file, where we return 1 on 0, rather
than using libxl error codes.
Signed-off-by: Dario Faggioli
Cc: Ian Campbell
Cc: Ian Jackson
Cc: Stefano Stabellini
Cc: Wei Liu
Cc: Juergen Gross
---
tools/libxl/xl_cmdimpl.c | 69 --
1 f
11 matches
Mail list logo
