Re: [libvirt] [PATCH] libvirt.c: fix virStateActive return value; document ...

On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 03:54:30PM +0100, Jim Meyering wrote: > The s/1/-1/ fix induces no semantic change, since the sole use > of virStateActive tests solely for nonzero. > > >From 4bc9713207a2ed6b101e2067f7bba82d1df45987 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Jim Meyering <meyering(a)redhat.com&gt; > Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 15:52:55 +0100 > Subject: [PATCH] libvirt.c: fix virStateActive return value; document some new functions > > * src/libvirt.c (virStateActive): Return -1 upon error, not 1, > to be consistent with the other virState* functions. > (virStateActive, virStateCleanup, virStateReload, virStateActive): > Add per-function comments. NACK. > +/** > + * virStateActive > + * > + * Run each virtualization driver's "active" method. > + * > + * Return 0 if successful, -1 upon error. > + */ > int virStateActive(void) { > int i, ret = 0; > > for (i = 0 ; i < virStateDriverTabCount ; i++) { > if (virStateDriverTab[i]->active && > virStateDriverTab[i]->active()) > - ret = 1; > + ret = -1; This is *not* an error condition. This method is basically asking whether the driver is 'active' - eg, does it have any domains running. It returns 0 if it isn't active, or 1 if it is active. There is no error scenario - it can never fail.