Akio,
Thank you for your input. Though you are using an error counter, it
seems like you are still using it as an error status flag
if(err_cnt!=0)...
How is this different from simply setting 0 or -1?
On Wed, 2006-08-16 at 09:53 +0900, Akio Takebe wrote:
> Hi, Ken
>
> Good work!
> But you should check coding-style. ;-)
>
> How about the following patch?
> I think cpy_sts is always -1 or 0.
> I think checking error counter is more worth than error status.
> I don't test the following patch. This is RFC.
>
> diff -r bef360142b62 tools/libxc/xc_core.c
> --- a/tools/libxc/xc_core.c Mon Aug 14 14:21:21 2006 -0600
> +++ b/tools/libxc/xc_core.c Wed Aug 16 09:19:08 2006 +0900
> @@ -37,6 +37,7 @@ xc_domain_dumpcore_via_callback(int xc_h
> char dummy[PAGE_SIZE];
> int dummy_len;
> int sts;
> + int err_cnt = 0;
>
> if ( (dump_mem_start = malloc(DUMP_INCREMENT*PAGE_SIZE)) == NULL )
> {
> @@ -103,7 +104,10 @@ xc_domain_dumpcore_via_callback(int xc_h
>
> for ( dump_mem = dump_mem_start, i = 0; i < nr_pages; i++ )
> {
> - copy_from_domain_page(xc_handle, domid, page_array[i], dump_mem);
> + sts = copy_from_domain_page(xc_handle, domid, page_array[i],
> dump_mem);
> + if ( sts != 0 )
> + err_cnt++;
> +
> dump_mem += PAGE_SIZE;
> if ( ((i + 1) % DUMP_INCREMENT == 0) || ((i + 1) == nr_pages) )
> {
> @@ -112,6 +116,11 @@ xc_domain_dumpcore_via_callback(int xc_h
> goto error_out;
> dump_mem = dump_mem_start;
> }
> + }
> +
> + if ( err_cnt != 0 ){
> + IPRINTF("Could not copy from domid=%d page\n", domid);
> + goto error_out;
> }
>
> free(dump_mem_start);
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Akio Takebe
>
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
Home