12:58 p.m.
From: GAURAV AGRAWAL <agrawalgaurav(a)gnome.org>
Signed-off-by: Gaurav Agrawal <agrawalgaurav(a)gnome.org>
---
src/network/bridge_driver_linux.c | 5 +++--
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/network/bridge_driver_linux.c b/src/network/bridge_driver_linux.c
index 7bbde5c6a9..fde33b5d38 100644
--- a/src/network/bridge_driver_linux.c
+++ b/src/network/bridge_driver_linux.c
@@ -22,6 +22,7 @@
#include <config.h>
#include "viralloc.h"
+#include "virerror.h"
#include "virfile.h"
#include "viriptables.h"
#include "virstring.h"
@@ -53,7 +54,7 @@ static void networkSetupPrivateChains(void)
if (rc < 0) {
VIR_DEBUG("Failed to create global IPv4 chains: %s",
virGetLastErrorMessage());
- errInitV4 = virSaveLastError();
+ virErrorPreserveLast(&errInitV4);
virResetLastError();
} else {
virFreeError(errInitV4);
@@ -70,7 +71,7 @@ static void networkSetupPrivateChains(void)
if (rc < 0) {
VIR_DEBUG("Failed to create global IPv6 chains: %s",
virGetLastErrorMessage());
- errInitV6 = virSaveLastError();
+ virErrorPreserveLast(&errInitV6);
virResetLastError();
} else {
virFreeError(errInitV6);
--
2.24.1
9:09 p.m.
On 2/24/20 1:58 PM, Gaurav Agrawal wrote:
From: GAURAV AGRAWAL <agrawalgaurav(a)gnome.org>
Signed-off-by: Gaurav Agrawal <agrawalgaurav(a)gnome.org>
---
src/network/bridge_driver_linux.c | 5 +++--
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
Yay! It applied properly, so you have all the pieces of patch submission
properly in line! :-)
(Welcome to the neighborhood, BTW.)
diff --git a/src/network/bridge_driver_linux.c b/src/network/bridge_driver_linux.c
index 7bbde5c6a9..fde33b5d38 100644
--- a/src/network/bridge_driver_linux.c
+++ b/src/network/bridge_driver_linux.c
@@ -22,6 +22,7 @@
#include <config.h>
#include "viralloc.h"
+#include "virerror.h"
#include "virfile.h"
#include "viriptables.h"
#include "virstring.h"
@@ -53,7 +54,7 @@ static void networkSetupPrivateChains(void)
if (rc < 0) {
VIR_DEBUG("Failed to create global IPv4 chains: %s",
virGetLastErrorMessage());
- errInitV4 = virSaveLastError();
+ virErrorPreserveLast(&errInitV4);
virResetLastError();
} else {
virFreeError(errInitV4);
@@ -70,7 +71,7 @@ static void networkSetupPrivateChains(void)
if (rc < 0) {
VIR_DEBUG("Failed to create global IPv6 chains: %s",
virGetLastErrorMessage());
- errInitV6 = virSaveLastError();
+ virErrorPreserveLast(&errInitV6);
virResetLastError();
} else {
virFreeError(errInitV6);
For anyone who didn't notice, this patch is for one of the "bite sized
tasks" here:
https://wiki.libvirt.org/page/BiteSizedTasks#More_conversions_to_virError...
This is a very strange case of virSaveLastError() / virSetError() to
pick - usually they are in pairs within the same function, but in this
case when the original error occurs during the driver init, it is
squanched away in the static errInitV[46] with virSaveLastError(), and
later, in a completely different context, whenever something tries to
add a firewall rule of the given type, *then* it sets the error (with
virSetError()) to what was earlier encountered during init.
Your patch has replaced the virSaveLastError() of the earlier part with
virErrorPreserveLast(), but hasn't replaced the virSetError() of the
later part (which is down in networkAddFirewallRules()) with
virErrorRestore().
I can make those two minor changes and push if you like, or you're free
to send again with --subject-prefix="PATCHv2". (Or, maybe an even better
idea - you could expand the patch to replace all the other uses of
virSaveLastError()/virSetError()). The choice is yours :-)
(Oh, and BTW, no need to Cc: crobinso - he'll see it anyway)
6:37 a.m.
On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 10:09:05PM -0500, Laine Stump wrote:
On 2/24/20 1:58 PM, Gaurav Agrawal wrote:
>From: GAURAV AGRAWAL <agrawalgaurav(a)gnome.org>
>
>Signed-off-by: Gaurav Agrawal <agrawalgaurav(a)gnome.org>
>---
> src/network/bridge_driver_linux.c | 5 +++--
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
Yay! It applied properly, so you have all the pieces of patch
submission properly in line! :-)
(Welcome to the neighborhood, BTW.)
>
>diff --git a/src/network/bridge_driver_linux.c b/src/network/bridge_driver_linux.c
>index 7bbde5c6a9..fde33b5d38 100644
>--- a/src/network/bridge_driver_linux.c
>+++ b/src/network/bridge_driver_linux.c
>@@ -22,6 +22,7 @@
> #include <config.h>
> #include "viralloc.h"
>+#include "virerror.h"
> #include "virfile.h"
> #include "viriptables.h"
> #include "virstring.h"
>@@ -53,7 +54,7 @@ static void networkSetupPrivateChains(void)
> if (rc < 0) {
> VIR_DEBUG("Failed to create global IPv4 chains: %s",
> virGetLastErrorMessage());
>- errInitV4 = virSaveLastError();
>+ virErrorPreserveLast(&errInitV4);
> virResetLastError();
> } else {
> virFreeError(errInitV4);
>@@ -70,7 +71,7 @@ static void networkSetupPrivateChains(void)
> if (rc < 0) {
> VIR_DEBUG("Failed to create global IPv6 chains: %s",
> virGetLastErrorMessage());
>- errInitV6 = virSaveLastError();
>+ virErrorPreserveLast(&errInitV6);
> virResetLastError();
> } else {
> virFreeError(errInitV6);
For anyone who didn't notice, this patch is for one of the "bite sized
tasks" here:
https://wiki.libvirt.org/page/BiteSizedTasks#More_conversions_to_virError...
This is a very strange case of virSaveLastError() / virSetError() to
pick - usually they are in pairs within the same function, but in this
case when the original error occurs during the driver init, it is
squanched away in the static errInitV[46] with virSaveLastError(), and
later, in a completely different context, whenever something tries to
add a firewall rule of the given type, *then* it sets the error (with
virSetError()) to what was earlier encountered during init.
Yes, networkSetupPrivateChains is only called once (via virOnce, as
suggested by the comment on the top of the function) on initialization
and if either IPv4 or IPv6 chains could not be created, it sets the
dirver-global error, which is then called on any subsequent attempt
to use it.
So this is not really a case that needs to be converted.
In fact, glancing at git gre virSetError it seems we already got rid
of all the ones worth converting.
Your patch has replaced the virSaveLastError() of the earlier part
with virErrorPreserveLast(), but hasn't replaced the virSetError() of
the later part (which is down in networkAddFirewallRules()) with
virErrorRestore().
virErrorRestore resets the error, which is not what we want here -
any subsequent calls should report the same error we caught when
initializing.
Jano
I can make those two minor changes and push if you like, or you're
free to send again with --subject-prefix="PATCHv2". (Or, maybe an even
better idea - you could expand the patch to replace all the other uses
of virSaveLastError()/virSetError()). The choice is yours :-)
(Oh, and BTW, no need to Cc: crobinso - he'll see it anyway)
11:16 a.m.
On 2/25/20 7:37 AM, Ján Tomko wrote:
On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 10:09:05PM -0500, Laine Stump wrote:
> On 2/24/20 1:58 PM, Gaurav Agrawal wrote:
>
Yes, networkSetupPrivateChains is only called once (via virOnce, as
suggested by the comment on the top of the function) on initialization
and if either IPv4 or IPv6 chains could not be created, it sets the
dirver-global error, which is then called on any subsequent attempt
to use it.
So this is not really a case that needs to be converted.
In fact, glancing at git gre virSetError it seems we already got rid
of all the ones worth converting.
I could have sworn that when I looked last night there were a handful of
virSaveLastError() calls, and that I looked at one that was paired with
virSetError(). But when I look now I see that all the virSaveLastError()
calls remaining are strange "save this for later" type things rather
than "save this for a second while we clean up the mess".
It looks like jferlan pushed a bunch of patches in Dec 2018 to do all
the valid replacements, but the item was never removed from the
bite-sized tasks list (he might have fixed them without even knowing
about the item on the list). I just went to the wiki to remove it and
see that Jano has already taken care of it!
>
> Your patch has replaced the virSaveLastError() of the earlier part
> with virErrorPreserveLast(), but hasn't replaced the virSetError() of
> the later part (which is down in networkAddFirewallRules()) with
> virErrorRestore().
virErrorRestore resets the error, which is not what we want here -
any subsequent calls should report the same error we caught when
initializing.
Yeah, I realized that was probably the case in the middle of the night
last night, but wasn't at the keyboard to chastise myself. I knew I
should have just gone to bed instead of sitting down for one last pass...
But anyway the upside is that Guarav got git send-email configured
properly to send future patches (while we're on the topic of workflow -
when you send a modified/updated version of a patch, be sure to note
that in the subject, e.g. with "--subject-prefix="PATCHv2").
12:10 p.m.
Hi Laine,
I am sure that I did --subject-prefix , not sure why it did not landed.
Now am wondering about this situation do I still need a PATCH-3 or it's
handled ?
Thanks for giving your one last pass!
Best Regards
Gaurav
On Tue, Feb 25, 2020, 22:46 Laine Stump <laine(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On 2/25/20 7:37 AM, Ján Tomko wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 10:09:05PM -0500, Laine Stump wrote:
>> On 2/24/20 1:58 PM, Gaurav Agrawal wrote:
>>
>
> Yes, networkSetupPrivateChains is only called once (via virOnce, as
> suggested by the comment on the top of the function) on initialization
> and if either IPv4 or IPv6 chains could not be created, it sets the
> dirver-global error, which is then called on any subsequent attempt
> to use it.
>
> So this is not really a case that needs to be converted.
> In fact, glancing at git gre virSetError it seems we already got rid
> of all the ones worth converting.
I could have sworn that when I looked last night there were a handful of
virSaveLastError() calls, and that I looked at one that was paired with
virSetError(). But when I look now I see that all the virSaveLastError()
calls remaining are strange "save this for later" type things rather
than "save this for a second while we clean up the mess".
It looks like jferlan pushed a bunch of patches in Dec 2018 to do all
the valid replacements, but the item was never removed from the
bite-sized tasks list (he might have fixed them without even knowing
about the item on the list). I just went to the wiki to remove it and
see that Jano has already taken care of it!
>
>
>>
>> Your patch has replaced the virSaveLastError() of the earlier part
>> with virErrorPreserveLast(), but hasn't replaced the virSetError() of
>> the later part (which is down in networkAddFirewallRules()) with
>> virErrorRestore().
>
> virErrorRestore resets the error, which is not what we want here -
> any subsequent calls should report the same error we caught when
> initializing.
Yeah, I realized that was probably the case in the middle of the night
last night, but wasn't at the keyboard to chastise myself. I knew I
should have just gone to bed instead of sitting down for one last pass...
But anyway the upside is that Guarav got git send-email configured
properly to send future patches (while we're on the topic of workflow -
when you send a modified/updated version of a patch, be sure to note
that in the subject, e.g. with "--subject-prefix="PATCHv2").
12:59 p.m.
On 2/25/20 1:10 PM, Gaurav Agrawal wrote:
Hi Laine,
I am sure that I did --subject-prefix , not sure why it did not landed.
Now am wondering about this situation do I still need a PATCH-3 or it's
handled ?
Nah, Jano pointed out what I thought of late last night - this is
different from the traditional use cases that the task-list wanted to
have removed - it saves the error to re-use it multiple times in the
future, so virErrorRestore() would actually do the *wrong* thing here.
And since virErrorPreserveLast() is intended to be used in a pair with
virErrorRestore(), there is actually nothing to do here.
And even beyond that, when I looked at the list of remaining cases of
virSaveLastError() for more than the 10 seconds I looked last night, I
see (as Jano pointed out) that all the cases that should be converted,
already *were* converted.
The only problem is that the person who did the converted didn't know
that was a task on the bite-sized tasks list, so they didn't remove it.
Jano has now updated the task list to remove stale entries. So maybe you
can find something else on that list to fix.
Sorry for sending you through all this. On the upside, your .gitconfig
is now in order :-)
Thanks for giving your one last pass!
Best Regards
Gaurav
On Tue, Feb 25, 2020, 22:46 Laine Stump <laine(a)redhat.com
<mailto:laine@redhat.com>> wrote:
On 2/25/20 7:37 AM, Ján Tomko wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 10:09:05PM -0500, Laine Stump wrote:
>> On 2/24/20 1:58 PM, Gaurav Agrawal wrote:
>>
>
> Yes, networkSetupPrivateChains is only called once (via virOnce, as
> suggested by the comment on the top of the function) on
initialization
> and if either IPv4 or IPv6 chains could not be created, it sets the
> dirver-global error, which is then called on any subsequent attempt
> to use it.
>
> So this is not really a case that needs to be converted.
> In fact, glancing at git gre virSetError it seems we already got rid
> of all the ones worth converting.
I could have sworn that when I looked last night there were a
handful of
virSaveLastError() calls, and that I looked at one that was paired with
virSetError(). But when I look now I see that all the
virSaveLastError()
calls remaining are strange "save this for later" type things rather
than "save this for a second while we clean up the mess".
It looks like jferlan pushed a bunch of patches in Dec 2018 to do all
the valid replacements, but the item was never removed from the
bite-sized tasks list (he might have fixed them without even knowing
about the item on the list). I just went to the wiki to remove it and
see that Jano has already taken care of it!
>
>
>>
>> Your patch has replaced the virSaveLastError() of the earlier part
>> with virErrorPreserveLast(), but hasn't replaced the
virSetError() of
>> the later part (which is down in networkAddFirewallRules()) with
>> virErrorRestore().
>
> virErrorRestore resets the error, which is not what we want here -
> any subsequent calls should report the same error we caught when
> initializing.
Yeah, I realized that was probably the case in the middle of the night
last night, but wasn't at the keyboard to chastise myself. I knew I
should have just gone to bed instead of sitting down for one last
pass...
But anyway the upside is that Guarav got git send-email configured
properly to send future patches (while we're on the topic of workflow -
when you send a modified/updated version of a patch, be sure to note
that in the subject, e.g. with "--subject-prefix="PATCHv2").
1732
days inactive
1733
days old
5 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Gaurav Agrawal -
Ján Tomko -
Laine Stump