On 29/03/16 16:24, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>>>> +static int usbback_is_loaded(libxl__gc *gc)
>>>> +{
>>>> + int r;
>>>> + struct stat st;
>>>> +
>>>> + r = lstat(SYSFS_USBBACK_DRIVER, &st);
>>>> +
>>>> + if (r == 0)
>>>> + return 1;
>>>> + if (r < 0 && errno == ENOENT)
>>>> + return 0;
>>>
>>> I believe the CODING STYLE in libxl asks for you to use { } for these
>>> ones.
>>
>> No, it doesn't:
>>
>> Quote from tools/libxl/CODING_STYLE:
>>
>> 5. Block structure
>>
>> Every indented statement is braced apart from blocks that contain just
>> one statement.
>
> You are right. I am so used to 'if (..) else'!
>>
>>>
>>>> + LOGE(ERROR, "Accessing %s", SYSFS_USBBACK_DRIVER);
>>>
>>> Why is this an error?
>>
>> What else? We can't determine whether the driver is loaded or not.
>> ENOENT is tested above, so it must be something weird.
>
> Or it could be EPERM.
Which is weird in this case. :-)
>>
>>>
>>>> + return -1;
>
> Which results in the code assuming (the caller of this function)
> it is an kernel driver. Is that OK? Or should we bail out completly?
Have a look in V4 of the patches. :-)
Juergen
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
