On Fri, 2015-06-26 at 15:33 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Ian Campbell writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH RFC 1/9] libxl idl: add comments
> to error enum"):
> > It would be a bit wrong to have an application specific error code in
> > the library space.
>
> Yes.
>
Ian Campbell writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH RFC 1/9] libxl idl: add comments
to error enum"):
> It would be a bit wrong to have an application specific error code in
> the library space.
Yes.
> Perhaps we should declare some ranges which for specific uses. For
> insta
On Fri, 2015-06-26 at 14:12 +, Rob Hoes wrote:
> >> +# General failure; code should be avoided (used only in "xl")
> >> (-7, "BADFAIL"),
> >
> > Maybe it should be renamed.
>
> Perhaps ERROR_INTERNAL_XL?
It would be a bit wrong to have an application specific error code in
the librar
> On 24 Jun 2015, at 16:06, Ian Jackson wrote:
...
>> +# Out of memory (malloc or similar failed)
>> (-5, "NOMEM"),
>
> Should say whether this includes "host does not have enough memory to
> create the specified domain" as well as "malloc failed in toolstack".
>
> NB that we are trying
Ian Campbell writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH RFC 1/9] libxl idl: add comments
to error enum"):
> On Wed, 2015-06-24 at 14:47 +0100, Rob Hoes wrote:
> > libxl_error = Enumeration("error", [
> > +# Generic failure; code should be avoided (often seen as &q
On Wed, 2015-06-24 at 14:47 +0100, Rob Hoes wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Rob Hoes
> ---
> tools/libxl/libxl_types.idl | 41 +
> 1 file changed, 41 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/tools/libxl/libxl_types.idl b/tools/libxl/libxl_types.idl
> index 65d479f..6dc18fa
Rob Hoes writes ("[PATCH RFC 1/9] libxl idl: add comments to error enum"):
...
> libxl_error = Enumeration("error", [
Thanks for this. It think at this stage it is probably most helpful
to concentrate on the specification, that is the list of error codes
and corresponding docs.
So:
I think it
