On Fri, 2015-10-30 at 15:28 +0100, Dario Faggioli wrote: > On Thu, 2015-10-29 at 20:28 +0530, Lasya Venneti wrote: > > > > > > On 29 October 2015 at 15:41, Dario Faggioli < > > dario.faggi...@citrix.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, 2015-10-29 at 10:07 +0000, Wei Liu wrote: > > > > > As for xc_dom_allocate, the only failure path at the moment is > > > malloc > > > > failure, which would be appropriate to use ENOMEM to represent. > > > > > > > > However if it causes too many faffs, you can just set rv to -1 > > > and > > > > return to caller. I think the main point is to handle the error, > > > > either > > > > -1 or ENOMEM is fine by me. > > > > > > > Agreed but, I personally prefer -1, for consistency. :-) > > > > > So should I proceed with -1? In that case I don't need to add the > > header... > > > If you're still up for this (and for the other patch, which would be > great!), yes, go for -1.
Per my reply to v1 (still catching up on email backlog) yes, -1 is the correct thing to use here. ENOMEM is actively wrong. Ian. _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
