On Fri, 2015-06-26 at 14:12 +0000, 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 library space. Perhaps we should declare some ranges which for specific uses. For instance perhaps 0x7FFF0000..0x7FFFFFFF could be set aside for the application, so xl can define itself some errors which it can use for its own needs without needing to handle two separate error spaces. xl could then define these codes itself. Likewise perhaps libxl internal errors should be given their own range, which the application can legitimately expect never to see. I was originally think about this in the context of the xenstore patch in this series, i.e. declaring that some range is used for the existing XS error codes (e.g. 0x3000xxxx is a xenstore code). I'm not sure if that's a good idea or not. Ian. _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
