On 9/17/19 9:27 AM, Wieczorkiewicz, Pawel wrote:
On 16. Sep 2019, at 19:01, Ross Lagerwall <ross.lagerw...@citrix.com
<mailto:ross.lagerw...@citrix.com>> wrote:
On 9/16/19 11:59 AM, Pawel Wieczorkiewicz wrote:
snip
+/*
+ * Parse user provided action flags.
+ * This function expects to only receive an array of input
parameters being flags.
+ * Expected action is specified via idx paramater (index of
flag_options[]).
+ */
+static int get_flags(int argc, char *argv[], unsigned int idx,
uint64_t *flags)
+{
+ int i, j;
+
+ if ( !flags || idx >= ARRAY_SIZE(flag_options) )
+ return -1;
+
+ *flags = 0;
+ for ( i = 0; i < argc; i++ )
+ {
+ for ( j = 0; j < ARRAY_SIZE(flag_options[idx]); j++ )
+ {
+ if ( !flag_options[idx][j].name )
+ goto error;
+
+ if ( !strcmp(flag_options[idx][j].name, argv[i]) )
+ {
+ *flags |= flag_options[idx][j].flag;
+ break;
+ }
+ }
+
+ if ( j == ARRAY_SIZE(flag_options[idx]) )
+ goto error;
+ }
+
+ return 0;
+error:
+ fprintf(stderr, "Unsupported flag: %s.\n", argv[i]);
+ errno = EINVAL;
+ return errno;
+}
You return -1 above but +ve errno here. Please make it consistent.
Well, I understood from the code of the file (e.g. action_func()) that
the -1 value indicates a unexpected runtime error (negative val).
Whereas, positive errno values are expected error to be dealt with.
So:
<0 - fatal errors
0 - ok
>0 - errors to be handled
Could you confirm please that I should make get_flags() return only
positive errors?
From what I can see, the only positive errors that are "handled" are
EAGAIN and EBUSY to report EXIT_TIMEOUT and the mixture of returning -1
and positive errno is a bug. But it's fine to leave it as is for now so it.
Also, you don't need to set errno if returning the actual error.
Honestly, I just copied the code from get_name() and wanted to the
get_flags() to follow similar pattern.
Sure.
--
Ross Lagerwall
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
