On Fri, Apr 02, 2010 at 05:29:58PM -0400, Chris Lalancette wrote:
On 04/02/2010 04:56 PM, Daniel Veillard wrote:
diff --git a/src/remote/remote_protocol.x b/src/remote/remote_protocol.x index f86c7f1..0374f9a 100644 --- a/src/remote/remote_protocol.x +++ b/src/remote/remote_protocol.x @@ -1657,6 +1657,10 @@ struct remote_domain_has_managed_save_image_args { unsigned flags; };
+struct remote_domain_has_managed_save_image_ret { + int ret; +}; +
Hm, I don't think this is necessary. I think the return value is always going to be an int, so you should just be able to return -1, 0, or 1 in the remote driver as necessary.
My initial reaction was the same, then I looked at GetMaxVcpus and other examples and converted the code accordingly.
At least, that's how all of the other things that return numbers (such as virDomainNumDefinedDomains) work.
In the cases I checked and looked for it seems the network call() return values is always 0 or -1, and looking at virDomainGetMaxVcpus() it does use struct remote_domain_get_max_vcpus_ret { int num; }; same for virDomainNumDomains() and I also see struct remote_num_of_defined_domains_ret { int num; }; in the src/remote/remote_protocol.x right now, remoteNumOfDefinedDomains( does use remote_num_of_defined_domains_ret ret; and remoteDispatchNumOfDefinedDomains() do use a remote_num_of_defined_domains_ret *ret argument, so I'm wondering if we are really looking at the same code. In the case we just return 0 for success and -1 in case of error, we clearly don't need the return structure, but all examples I checked for an full int reurn used a structure. So I assume the change is needed, or at least it's safe :-) Daniel -- Daniel Veillard | libxml Gnome XML XSLT toolkit http://xmlsoft.org/ daniel@veillard.com | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/ http://veillard.com/ | virtualization library http://libvirt.org/