[PATCH] virsh: Fix return code for dump
From 4899d04fab878d5a0e13f01b8b137af233bc7d33 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Xu Yandong <xuyandong2@huawei.com> Date: Mon, 4 May 2020 16:36:19 +0800 Subject: [PATCH] virsh: Fix return code for dump
After the commit dc0771c, ret variable no longer represents the status of the return code, use data->ret replace it. Signed-off-by: Xu Yandong <xuyandong2@huawei.com> --- tools/virsh-domain.c | 5 ++--- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/tools/virsh-domain.c b/tools/virsh-domain.c index 0704529458..61cd72f714 100644 --- a/tools/virsh-domain.c +++ b/tools/virsh-domain.c @@ -5522,7 +5522,6 @@ static bool cmdDump(vshControl *ctl, const vshCmd *cmd) { virDomainPtr dom; - bool ret = false; bool verbose = false; const char *name = NULL; const char *to = NULL; @@ -5556,12 +5555,12 @@ cmdDump(vshControl *ctl, const vshCmd *cmd) virThreadJoin(&workerThread); - if (!ret) + if (!data.ret) vshPrintExtra(ctl, _("\nDomain %s dumped to %s\n"), name, to); cleanup: virshDomainFree(dom); - return !ret; + return !data.ret; } static const vshCmdInfo info_screenshot[] = { -- 2.21.0
On Mon, 2020-05-04 at 09:48 +0000, Xuyandong (Yandong Xu) wrote:
+++ b/tools/virsh-domain.c @@ -5522,7 +5522,6 @@ static bool cmdDump(vshControl *ctl, const vshCmd *cmd) { virDomainPtr dom; - bool ret = false; bool verbose = false; const char *name = NULL; const char *to = NULL; @@ -5556,12 +5555,12 @@ cmdDump(vshControl *ctl, const vshCmd *cmd)
virThreadJoin(&workerThread);
- if (!ret) + if (!data.ret) vshPrintExtra(ctl, _("\nDomain %s dumped to %s\n"), name, to);
cleanup: virshDomainFree(dom); - return !ret; + return !data.ret; }
This is in the same vein as fbc4e81a36d1, and I think we should definitely squeeze it in before release, so that's a Signed-off-by: Andrea Bolognani <abologna@redhat.com> from me. Dan, what do you think? -- Andrea Bolognani / Red Hat / Virtualization
On Mon, May 04, 2020 at 02:09:02PM +0200, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
On Mon, 2020-05-04 at 09:48 +0000, Xuyandong (Yandong Xu) wrote:
+++ b/tools/virsh-domain.c @@ -5522,7 +5522,6 @@ static bool cmdDump(vshControl *ctl, const vshCmd *cmd) { virDomainPtr dom; - bool ret = false; bool verbose = false; const char *name = NULL; const char *to = NULL; @@ -5556,12 +5555,12 @@ cmdDump(vshControl *ctl, const vshCmd *cmd)
virThreadJoin(&workerThread);
- if (!ret) + if (!data.ret) vshPrintExtra(ctl, _("\nDomain %s dumped to %s\n"), name, to);
cleanup: virshDomainFree(dom); - return !ret; + return !data.ret; }
This is in the same vein as fbc4e81a36d1, and I think we should definitely squeeze it in before release, so that's a
Signed-off-by: Andrea Bolognani <abologna@redhat.com>
from me. Dan, what do you think?
Agreed, Reviewed-by: Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com> Regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
On 5/4/20 2:09 PM, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
On Mon, 2020-05-04 at 09:48 +0000, Xuyandong (Yandong Xu) wrote:
+++ b/tools/virsh-domain.c @@ -5522,7 +5522,6 @@ static bool cmdDump(vshControl *ctl, const vshCmd *cmd) { virDomainPtr dom; - bool ret = false; bool verbose = false; const char *name = NULL; const char *to = NULL; @@ -5556,12 +5555,12 @@ cmdDump(vshControl *ctl, const vshCmd *cmd)
virThreadJoin(&workerThread);
- if (!ret) + if (!data.ret) vshPrintExtra(ctl, _("\nDomain %s dumped to %s\n"), name, to);
cleanup: virshDomainFree(dom); - return !ret; + return !data.ret; }
This is in the same vein as fbc4e81a36d1, and I think we should definitely squeeze it in before release, so that's a
Signed-off-by: Andrea Bolognani <abologna@redhat.com>
from me. Dan, what do you think?
I'm in the middle of review too. But I find !data.ret a bit confusing. The function is returning a boolean and not a pointer or an int. So how about 'return data.ret != 0'? I know John was against using 'if (!int)' and it kind of makes sense. Or even better, we can use our regular pattern and keep @ret, and do something like: if (data.ret < 0) goto cleanup; vshPrintExtra() ret = true; ... return ret; This is something that is perfectly fixable by committer, so no need to resend. I too agree that this is something that needs fixing and the sooner we fix it the better. Reviewed-by: Michal Privoznik <mprivozn@redhat.com> Michal
On Mon, 2020-05-04 at 14:19 +0200, Michal Privoznik wrote:
I'm in the middle of review too. But I find !data.ret a bit confusing. The function is returning a boolean and not a pointer or an int. So how about 'return data.ret != 0'? I know John was against using 'if (!int)' and it kind of makes sense.
Or even better, we can use our regular pattern and keep @ret, and do something like:
if (data.ret < 0) goto cleanup;
vshPrintExtra() ret = true; ... return ret;
Yeah I don't like it either, but if you look at the rest of the file there are multiple occurrences of the same pattern, which we should address as well. I will push the minimal fix for now, so that it can make it into 6.3.0; afterwards, someone can post a patch that removes the pattern from the entire file. -- Andrea Bolognani / Red Hat / Virtualization
participants (4)
-
Andrea Bolognani -
Daniel P. Berrangé -
Michal Privoznik -
Xuyandong (Yandong Xu)