On Thu, 2015-09-24 at 05:50 -0600, Jan Beulich wrote: > > > > On 24.09.15 at 13:00, <ian.campb...@citrix.com> wrote: > > On Thu, 2015-09-17 at 17:35 +0800, He Chen wrote: > > > diff --git a/tools/libxl/libxl_psr.c b/tools/libxl/libxl_psr.c > > > index 3378239..62963cf 100644 > > > --- a/tools/libxl/libxl_psr.c > > > +++ b/tools/libxl/libxl_psr.c > > > @@ -87,6 +87,9 @@ static void libxl__psr_cat_log_err_msg(libxl__gc > > > *gc, > > > int err) > > > case EEXIST: > > > msg = "The same CBM is already set to this domain"; > > > break; > > > + case EINVAL: > > > + msg = "Unable to set code or data CBM when CDP is disabled"; > > > + break; > > > > These overloading of the errno values are getting a bit thinly > > stretched. > > The more so that EINVAL has a widely used more generic meaning. > > > > Hypervisor maintainers, what is your opinion of this? > > > > Since this is a sysctl I suppose we could consider adding a new PSR > > specific error type with appropriate codes? > > I'd prefer using recognizable -E... values;
_If_ the -E values somehow map sensibly onto the PSR errors, otherwise they aren't really recognisable any more. > a specific error type > to me seems to go too far. Surely out of the several dozen > possibilities a handful of not-so-common ones can be picked? I was thinking in particular EINVAL was not in the not-so-common bracket. The current code already uses 9 values FWIW. Ian. _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
