Currently virProcessGetStatInfo() always returns success and only logs error when it is unable to parse the data. Make this function actually report the error and return a negative value in this error scenario. Signed-off-by: Ani Sinha <ani(a)anisinha.ca&gt; --- src/util/virprocess.c | 6 +++++- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/src/util/virprocess.c b/src/util/virprocess.c index c74bd16fe6..b9f498d5d8 100644 --- a/src/util/virprocess.c +++ b/src/util/virprocess.c @@ -1783,7 +1783,11 @@ virProcessGetStatInfo(unsigned long long *cpuTime, virStrToLong_ullp(proc_stat[VIR_PROCESS_STAT_STIME], NULL, 10, &systime) < 0 || virStrToLong_l(proc_stat[VIR_PROCESS_STAT_RSS], NULL, 10, &rss) < 0 || virStrToLong_i(proc_stat[VIR_PROCESS_STAT_PROCESSOR], NULL, 10, &cpu) < 0) { - VIR_WARN("cannot parse process status data"); + virReportError(VIR_ERR_INTERNAL_ERROR, + _("cannot parse process status data for pid '%d/%d'"), + (int) pid, (int) tid); + + return -1; } /* We got jiffies

On Fri, 7 Jan 2022, Michal Prívozník wrote: > On 1/7/22 10:09, Ani Sinha wrote: >> Currently virProcessGetStatInfo() always returns success and only logs error >> when it is unable to parse the data. Make this function actually report the >> error and return a negative value in this error scenario. >> >> Signed-off-by: Ani Sinha <ani(a)anisinha.ca&gt; >> --- >> src/util/virprocess.c | 6 +++++- >> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/src/util/virprocess.c b/src/util/virprocess.c >> index c74bd16fe6..b9f498d5d8 100644 >> --- a/src/util/virprocess.c >> +++ b/src/util/virprocess.c >> @@ -1783,7 +1783,11 @@ virProcessGetStatInfo(unsigned long long *cpuTime, >> virStrToLong_ullp(proc_stat[VIR_PROCESS_STAT_STIME], NULL, 10, &systime) < 0 || >> virStrToLong_l(proc_stat[VIR_PROCESS_STAT_RSS], NULL, 10, &rss) < 0 || >> virStrToLong_i(proc_stat[VIR_PROCESS_STAT_PROCESSOR], NULL, 10, &cpu) < 0) { >> - VIR_WARN("cannot parse process status data"); >> + virReportError(VIR_ERR_INTERNAL_ERROR, >> + _("cannot parse process status data for pid '%d/%d'"), >> + (int) pid, (int) tid); >> + >> + return -1; >> } >> >> /* We got jiffies > > Couple of problems with this patch as is. I'm not against the idea of > reporting an error here. Good. now we are moving in the right direction. But couple of things needs to be addressed first: > > 1) Currently, all callers check for retval and report an error if -1 was > returned. This means, that even though this new message is reported it > is immediately overwritten in caller. Let me fix the callers and send an updated patch. Meanwhile ... > > 2) The non-linux implementation now has to report error too. I believe > it's obvious why from our previous discussion this morning. Maybe you can fix your patch.