From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ian Jackson Subject: Re: [PATCH 22/29] libxl: Introduce DOMAIN_DESTROYED error code Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 19:47:41 +0100 Message-ID: <21786.60365.115230.952547@mariner.uk.xensource.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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1427198197.21742.367.camel@citrix.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Ian Campbell Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, Euan Harris List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org 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 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 ? Ian.