Re: [libvirt] [PATCH] introduce VIR_CLOSE to be used rather than close()

On 10/15/2010 11:32 AM, Eric Blake wrote: >> +int virClose(int *fdptr); > > Needs an ATTRIBUTE_NONNULL(1). I'm also debating whether it needs > ATTRIBUTE_RETURN_CHECK; normally, close() fails in very few situations, > and in cleanup paths, you tend to already have another error more > important so you can ignore the secondary close() failures. So I'm > probably 80-20 against adding ATTRIBUTE_RETURN_CHECK. > >> + >> +# define VIR_CLOSE(FD) \ >> + virClose(&(FD)) Thinking about it a bit more, what if we provide two variants? int virClose(int *fdptr, bool preserve_errno) { int saved_errno; int rc; if (*fdptr >= 0) { if (preserve_errno) saved_errno = errno; rc = close(*fdptr); *fdptr = -1; if (preserve_errno) errno = saved_errno; } else rc = 0; return rc; } int virClose(int *fdptr) ATTRIBUTE_RETURN_CHECK;

/* For use on normal paths; caller must check return value, and failure sets errno per close(). */ #define VIR_CLOSE(FD) virClose(&(FD),false); /* For use on cleanup paths; errno is unaffected by close, and no return value to worry about. */ #define VIR_FORCE_CLOSE(FD) ignore_value(virClose(&(FD),true))