On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 07:09:57PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 7/22/22 17:43, Martin Kletzander wrote:
> As mentioned before, all these failures do not have to exit the
> function, but rather fallback to the old way. You can even create
> two new functions for the new and old implementations and then call
> them from here to make the fallback easier to spot (and code).
More precisely, they should just "continue;" to the next iteration of
the for loop, like
if (!success_obj || !fail_obj)
continue;
found = true;
and then go fall back if found is false at the end of the loop.
On the other hand, here:
if (virJSONValueGetNumberUlong(success_obj, &curHaltPollSuccess) < 0)
return 0;
if (virJSONValueGetNumberUlong(fail_obj, &curHaltPollFail) < 0)
return 0;
I am not sure about falling back, because it is really an unexpected
situation where the statistic exist but somehow the value cannot be
parsed.
Then can we just "continue;" in case the value fails to parse as
well?
Paolo
> I wanted to change this before pushing as well, but I feel like I'm
> changing too much of your code. And I also had to rebase this
> (although trivially). Would you mind just changing these few last
> things so that we can get it in before the rc0 freeze?
Alright, as soon as
there is a viable check decided for the virJSONValueGet*
statements above, I will push a v4 with the changes you mentioned in
your reviews. Thank you both for taking the time to review.