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 :|