Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 COLOPre 07/26] libxc/restore: fix error handle of process_record

[Yang Hongyang <yanghy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 06/30/2015 12:07 AM, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-06-25 at 14:25 +0800, Yang Hongyang wrote:
>
> ITYM "handling" in the subject. And perhaps "change" rather than "fix"?
>
> > If the err is RECORD_NOT_PROCESSED, and it is an optional record,
> > restore will still fail. There're two options to fix this,
> >    a, setting rc to 0 when it is an optional record.
> >    b, do the error handling in the caller.
> > We choose b because:
> > There will be another error type in COLO, which indicates a failover,
> > that needs to be handled in restore(), so moving the error handling out
> > to make the logic clearer...Otherwise, in process_record,
> > RECORD_NOT_PROCESSED is handled, and in restore another error type
> > returned from process_record is handled.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Yang Hongyang <yanghy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > CC: Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > CC: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > CC: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >   tools/libxc/xc_sr_restore.c | 28 ++++++++++++++--------------
> >   1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/libxc/xc_sr_restore.c b/tools/libxc/xc_sr_restore.c
> > index fd45775..d5645e0 100644
> > --- a/tools/libxc/xc_sr_restore.c
> > +++ b/tools/libxc/xc_sr_restore.c
> > @@ -569,19 +569,6 @@ static int process_record(struct xc_sr_context *ctx, 
> > struct xc_sr_record *rec)
> >       free(rec->data);
> >       rec->data = NULL;
> >
> > -    if ( rc == RECORD_NOT_PROCESSED )
> > -    {
> > -        if ( rec->type & REC_TYPE_OPTIONAL )
> > -            DPRINTF("Ignoring optional record %#x (%s)",
> > -                    rec->type, rec_type_to_str(rec->type));
> > -        else
> > -        {
> > -            ERROR("Mandatory record %#x (%s) not handled",
> > -                  rec->type, rec_type_to_str(rec->type));
> > -            rc = -1;
> > -        }
> > -    }
> > -
> >       return rc;
> >   }
> >
> > @@ -669,7 +656,20 @@ static int restore(struct xc_sr_context *ctx)
> There is a second caller of process_record in handle_checkpoint, so this
> change will result in a change of behaviour for that case, I think.
Ah, seems I missed the other caller, good catch, and I will fix it in the
next version.

> If that is intentional then it ought to be mentioned in the commit log,
> since otherwise it looks a lot like this change is supposed to result in
> no overall difference.
>
> Ian.
>
>
> >           else
> >           {
> >               rc = process_record(ctx, &rec);
> > -            if ( rc )
> > +            if ( rc == RECORD_NOT_PROCESSED )
> > +            {
> > +                if ( rec.type & REC_TYPE_OPTIONAL )
> > +                    DPRINTF("Ignoring optional record %#x (%s)",
> > +                            rec.type, rec_type_to_str(rec.type));
> > +                else
> > +                {
> > +                    ERROR("Mandatory record %#x (%s) not handled",
> > +                          rec.type, rec_type_to_str(rec.type));
> > +                    rc = -1;
> > +                    goto err;
> > +                }
> > +            }
> > +            else if ( rc )
> >                   goto err;
> >           }
>
> .
--
Thanks,
Yang.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel