This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
Home Products Support Community News


Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] libxen-3.0 (libxc rewrite)

On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 10:06:44AM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> Christian Limpach wrote:
> >I think it does what I expect.  And it seems to work for a lot of
> >libraries just fine.  By not using the global errno, you're preventing
> >people from using perror, warn, err and the likes.  Also some of the
> >interfaces in your library are slightly awkward because you're wasting
> >the return parameter to return the failure reason.
> > 
> >
> You're right.  Some of the interfaces are a little awkward (especially 
> the memory mapping ones).  It seemed like a reasonable trade-off to make 
> though.

What about perror, warn, err and the likes, I really like to use those.
It seems very illogical having to stick the returned value into errno to be
able to use those...

> >Even if we don't use the global errno, I'm still wondering why you're
> >returning -errno and not errno?
> > 
> >
> Good question.  I guess since we never returned > 0 it would be 
> reasonable to return errno instead of -errno.  -errno is the convention 
> used in the Linux kernel.  That's what I was modelling.

Again, it seems illogical having to negate the returned value to be
able to use it, when there's no reason to return a negative value in
the first place.


This SF.net email is sponsored by: 2005 Windows Mobile Application Contest
Submit applications for Windows Mobile(tm)-based Pocket PCs or Smartphones
for the chance to win $25,000 and application distribution. Enter today at
Xen-devel mailing list