From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: =?windows-1252?Q?Roger_Pau_Monn=E9?= <roger.pau@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 01/31] libxl: fix libxl__build_hvm error
	handling
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2015 13:28:32 +0200
Message-ID: <55C49660.7010808@citrix.com>
References: <1438942688-7610-1-git-send-email-roger.pau@citrix.com>
	<1438942688-7610-2-git-send-email-roger.pau@citrix.com>
	<20150807104922.GD6005@zion.uk.xensource.com>
	<55C48E99.3050606@citrix.com>
	<20150807110317.GF6005@zion.uk.xensource.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
Received: from mail6.bemta5.messagelabs.com ([195.245.231.135])
	by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <prvs=654947d1e=roger.pau@citrix.com>)
	id 1ZNfpM-0007ew-Nc
	for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Fri, 07 Aug 2015 11:28:44 +0000
In-Reply-To: <20150807110317.GF6005@zion.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: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>
Cc: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com>, Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>, Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

El 07/08/15 a les 13.03, Wei Liu ha escrit:
> On Fri, Aug 07, 2015 at 12:55:21PM +0200, Roger Pau Monn=E9 wrote:
>> El 07/08/15 a les 12.49, Wei Liu ha escrit:
>>> On Fri, Aug 07, 2015 at 12:17:38PM +0200, Roger Pau Monne wrote:
>>>> With the current code in libxl__build_hvm it is possible for the funct=
ion to
>>>> fail and still return 0.
> =

> I care about this bit, which states clearly there is a bug that needs
> fixing.

There are a bunch of error paths in this function that needs fixing,
every error path below the call to libxl__domain_device_construct_rdm
will simply return with rc =3D 0, because the return code of the functions
is stored in ret, but the return code for libxl__build_hvm is fetched
from rc.

>>> It's hard to see where the bug is when this patch also does a bunch of
>>> refactoring.
>>
>> It refactors the error paths only, mainly replacing:
>>
>> if (libxl_call_foo(bar))
>>     <error>
>>
>> to
>>
>> rc =3D libxl_call_foo(bar)
>> if (rc !=3D 0)
>>     <error>
>>
> =

> But this suggests there is no bug?

The bug is that we return with rc =3D 0, that's why it's important to
change this to follow the coding style. I agree that the patch could be
simpler by setting rc to some sane value in each error path (or just
setting rc to ERROR_FAIL in the out label), but it doesn't make much
sense to me to do this kind of fixing. If we fix it, we fix it for good.

> =

>> So we can keep the error codes returned by auxiliary functions.
>>
>>> It would be good if you can separate the bug fix from other name
>>> changing bits, so that we can apply that bug fix for 4.6 possibly queue
>>> it up for backporting.
>>
>> There are no name changing bits AFAICT.
>>
> =

> Changing ret for rc is naming changing to me. It's a good thing to do to
> comply with coding style, but mixing this with bug fix makes it hard to
> backport the fix itself.

I agree that the patch could be simplified, and I can send a simpler fix
iif needed, but as said above I would prefer to fix it in a proper way.

Roger.