On Mon, 2015-06-08 at 11:43 +0800, Yang Hongyang wrote:
> If the err is RECORD_NOT_PROCESSED, and it is an optional record,
> restore will still fail. The patch fix this.
Whichever approach you take to fixing this, please say _how_ the change
fixes it, it's not at all clear why moving this code should matter.
And if there is an ulterior motive behind the move, please say that too.
>
> Signed-off-by: Yang Hongyang <yan...@cn.fujitsu.com>
> CC: Ian Campbell <ian.campb...@citrix.com>
> CC: Ian Jackson <ian.jack...@eu.citrix.com>
> CC: Wei Liu <wei.l...@citrix.com>
> CC: Andrew Cooper <andrew.coop...@citrix.com>
> ---
> tools/libxc/xc_sr_restore.c | 28 ++++++++++++++--------------
> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/libxc/xc_sr_restore.c b/tools/libxc/xc_sr_restore.c
> index 9e27dba..2d2edd3 100644
> --- a/tools/libxc/xc_sr_restore.c
> +++ b/tools/libxc/xc_sr_restore.c
> @@ -560,19 +560,6 @@ static int process_record(struct xc_sr_context *ctx,
> struct xc_sr_record *rec)
> free(rec->data);
> rec->data = NULL;
>
> - if ( rc == RECORD_NOT_PROCESSED )
> - {
> - if ( rec->type & REC_TYPE_OPTIONAL )
> - DPRINTF("Ignoring optional record %#x (%s)",
> - rec->type, rec_type_to_str(rec->type));
> - else
> - {
> - ERROR("Mandatory record %#x (%s) not handled",
> - rec->type, rec_type_to_str(rec->type));
> - rc = -1;
> - }
> - }
> -
> return rc;
> }
>
> @@ -678,7 +665,20 @@ static int restore(struct xc_sr_context *ctx)
> else
> {
> rc = process_record(ctx, &rec);
> - if ( rc )
> + if ( rc == RECORD_NOT_PROCESSED )
> + {
> + if ( rec.type & REC_TYPE_OPTIONAL )
> + DPRINTF("Ignoring optional record %#x (%s)",
> + rec.type, rec_type_to_str(rec.type));
> + else
> + {
> + ERROR("Mandatory record %#x (%s) not handled",
> + rec.type, rec_type_to_str(rec.type));
> + rc = -1;
> + goto err;
> + }
> + }
> + else if ( rc )
> goto err;
> }
>
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
