From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 22/29] libxl: Introduce DOMAIN_DESTROYED
 error code
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2015 10:41:46 +0100
Message-ID: <1427881306.2115.258.camel@citrix.com>
References: <1423599016-32639-1-git-send-email-ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com>
	<1423599016-32639-23-git-send-email-ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com>
	<1427198197.21742.367.camel@citrix.com>
	<21786.60365.115230.952547@mariner.uk.xensource.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
In-Reply-To: <21786.60365.115230.952547@mariner.uk.xensource.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com>
Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, Euan Harris <euan.harris@citrix.com>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On Tue, 2015-03-31 at 19:47 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Ian Campbell writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 22/29] libxl: Introduce DOMAIN_DESTROYED error code"):
> > Konrad has a semantically similar error code which he is adding, I think
> > in his recent libxl series to do with vcpu-set.
> 
> That is valuable, I think.
> 
> > AIUI Konrad's semantics are simply "domain does not exist", which seems
> > to be usefully distinct from your "did exist but doesn't any more".
> 
> Indeed, although it's not clear to me without peering at the code in
> detail whether my code always checks that the domain does exist before
> setting up the watch which might result in its death being reported.
> 
> > I just wanted to mention it in case I'd misunderstood one or both error
> > codes. As it stands this patch seems fine to me:
> ...
> > Acked-by: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> > I do wonder though if we ought to be better about documenting in the
> > code|headers|idl what error codes mean and where they should be used
> > (some are global, others specific to a subset of calls etc).
> 
> That would definitely be nice.  Do you think it would be helpful to
> respin this patch with that information ?

If you can be bothered, sure. I suppose we ought to start somewhere!

Ian.