On 7/6/2016 7:15 PM, Corneliu ZUZU wrote:
On 7/6/2016 7:01 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 06.07.16 at 17:52, <cz...@bitdefender.com> wrote:
Also adjust returned error code for similar check from -EINVAL to more
descriptive -ENOSYS (XEN_DOMCTL_MONITOR_OP_EMULATE_EACH_REP).
I'm not sure that's more descriptive, and we really try to not use
ENOSYS for other than unimplemented hypercalls. EOPNOTSUPP
perhaps?
Jan
Well, it's not quite an 'unsupported operation' and neither does the
toolstack user communicate an 'invalid value', he must just be noticed
that something (the vm-event subsystem) needs to be initialised before
the operation can be done.
But I agree ENOSYS is not acceptable either (I only now see it
signifies "Function not implemented", my bad for not peeking at that
before using it, I expected differently).
What about ENODEV, i.e. "No such device."? We need an error code
saying "Device not initialised"...
Thanks,
Corneliu.
Or ENOTCONN..?
Corneliu.
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
