On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 02:16:15PM -0500, John Ferlan wrote:
---
src/rpc/virnetsocket.c | 4 +++-
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/src/rpc/virnetsocket.c b/src/rpc/virnetsocket.c
index ef93892..6684eef 100644
--- a/src/rpc/virnetsocket.c
+++ b/src/rpc/virnetsocket.c
@@ -470,7 +470,9 @@ int virNetSocketNewConnectTCP(const char *nodename,
goto error;
}
- setsockopt(fd, SOL_SOCKET, SO_REUSEADDR, &opt, sizeof(opt));
+ if (setsockopt(fd, SOL_SOCKET, SO_REUSEADDR, &opt, sizeof(opt)) < 0) {
+ VIR_WARN("Unable to enable port reuse");
+ }
if (connect(fd, runp->ai_addr, runp->ai_addrlen) >= 0)
break;
Hmm, not sure I agree with this. If this is something that should
not occurr, then we should virReportError. If it is something we
expect to occur, then VIR_WARN will annoy people with irrelevant
messages.
My inclination is to treat it as a fatal error
Daniel
--
|:
http://berrange.com -o-
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|:
http://libvirt.org -o-
http://virt-manager.org :|
|:
http://autobuild.org -o-
http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|:
http://entangle-photo.org -o-
http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|