On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 10:56:33AM -0700, Eric Blake wrote:
On 11/28/2011 10:46 AM, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>>> + /* Check if the host supports the requested suspend state */
>>> + switch (state) {
>>> + case VIR_NODE_S3:
>>> + if (hostPMFeatures & VIR_NODE_S3) {
>>> + cmdString = strdup("pm-suspend");
>>> + if (cmdString == NULL) {
>>> + virReportOOMError();
>>> + goto cleanup;
>>> + }
>>> + break;
>>> + }
>>> + goto cleanup;
>>
>> Needs to report an error, VIR_ERR_OPERATION_UNSUPPORTED
>>
>
>
> Ok, then I will define VIR_ERR_OPERATION_UNSUPPORTED in
> src/util/virterror.c and use it, since it is not there at
> present. And that definition should be in a separate,
> self-contained patch right?
Hmm, I think that was probably just a case of Daniel typing by memory
instead of checking the source, and evidence of how confusing our
existing error naming is. Just use the existing
VIR_ERR_OPERATION_INVALID instead of inventing a new error.
Sorry, I meant
VIR_ERR_ARGUMENT_UNSUPPORTED = 74, /* valid API use but unsupported by
the given driver */
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 :|