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 10:21:19AM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> Christian Limpach wrote:
> >>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...
> > 
> >
> You're not going to like this answer but I don't think I would use any 
> of those functions in a real management application.  Management tools 
> should be using standard logging suites (like syslog).

You mean like using `%m' in your format string to syslog(3)?

> strerror() still works with these return codes btw.  My test code 
> usually likes like this:
> domid_t domid;
> int ret = dom_create_domain(3000, 0, &domid);
> if (ret < 0) error("dom_create_domain: failed %s", strerror(-ret));

While most other people's test code would look like this:

domid = dom_create_domain(3000, 0);
if (domid < 0)
  err(1, "dom_create_domain");

I claim that this is what more people are used to since most libraries
support this interface, i.e. return _value_ with documented specific
error values, failure condition in errno and error reporting using one
of the various standard functions.


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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>