On 01/03/2013 02:34 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
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.
I asked about this yesterday and Michal P responded. The REUSEADDR is a
more of a hint for connections, see the end of:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2013-January/msg00064.html
I don't mind either way.
My inclination is to treat it as a fatal error
Daniel