Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3] xen/errno: Reduce complexity of
inclusion"):
> On 04.03.16 at 13:50, wrote:
> > IMO, it is wrong to undef XEN_ERRNO if it was provided from external scope.
>
> Well, even if not written down, that's the intended be
>>> On 04.03.16 at 13:50, wrote:
> On 04/03/16 12:28, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 04.03.16 at 13:24, wrote:
>> On 03.03.16 at 15:14, wrote:
@@ -82,16 +109,19 @@ XEN_ERRNO(EISCONN,106)/* Transport endpoint
is already
>>> connected */
XEN_ERRNO(ENOTCONN, 107)
On 04/03/16 12:28, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 04.03.16 at 13:24, wrote:
> On 03.03.16 at 15:14, wrote:
>>> @@ -82,16 +109,19 @@ XEN_ERRNO(EISCONN, 106)/* Transport endpoint
>>> is already
>> connected */
>>> XEN_ERRNO(ENOTCONN,107)/* Transport endpoint is not connected
>>> On 04.03.16 at 13:24, wrote:
On 03.03.16 at 15:14, wrote:
>> @@ -82,16 +109,19 @@ XEN_ERRNO(EISCONN, 106)/* Transport endpoint
>> is already
> connected */
>> XEN_ERRNO(ENOTCONN, 107)/* Transport endpoint is not connected */
>> XEN_ERRNO(ETIMEDOUT,110)/* Conn
>>> On 03.03.16 at 15:14, wrote:
> @@ -82,16 +109,19 @@ XEN_ERRNO(EISCONN, 106)/* Transport endpoint
> is already connected */
> XEN_ERRNO(ENOTCONN, 107)/* Transport endpoint is not connected */
> XEN_ERRNO(ETIMEDOUT, 110)/* Connection timed out */
>
> -#undef XEN_ERRNO
>
The inclusion rules conditions for errno.h were unnecesserily complicated, and
required the includer to jump through hoops if they wished to avoid getting
multiple namespaces worth of constants.
Simply the logic, and document what is going on.
Signed-off-by: Andrew Cooper
---
CC: Jan Beulich
CC
