4:48 a.m.
From 4899d04fab878d5a0e13f01b8b137af233bc7d33 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Xu Yandong <xuyandong2(a)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After the commit dc0771c, ret variable no longer
represents the status of the return code, use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(a)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
7:09 a.m.
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(a)redhat.com>
from me. Dan, what do you think?
--
Andrea Bolognani / Red Hat / Virtualization
7:11 a.m.
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(a)redhat.com>
from me. Dan, what do you think?
Agreed,
Reviewed-by: Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange(a)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 :|
7:19 a.m.
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(a)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(a)redhat.com>
Michal
7:26 a.m.
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
1663
days inactive
1663
days old
4 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Andrea Bolognani -
Daniel P. Berrangé -
Michal Privoznik -
Xuyandong (Yandong Xu)