[libvirt] [PATCH 1/2] Refactor virMutexInit virRWLockInit and virCondInit

Daniel P. Berrange berrange at redhat.com
Wed Jul 23 08:28:09 UTC 2014

On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 07:27:24AM +0200, Martin Kletzander wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 07:30:38AM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
> >On 07/17/2014 10:49 PM, Jincheng Miao wrote:
> >>Implement InitInternal functions for Mutex, RWLock and Cond, these functions
> >>contain error report using virReportSystemErrorFull, it is controlled by
> >>an argument 'quite'.
> >>The related macros are Init and InitQuite, they call InitInternal function
> >>by passing 'false' or 'true' to quite argument.
> >
> >After your patch 2, do we really have any callers that use the quiet
> >version? This seems like the sort of patch where ALL callers should be
> >noisy (especially since the failure is so rare, but also means we are
> >quite hosed if it happens).  What are the callers that you intend to be
> >quiet, and what is the justification for them being quiet?
> >
> I think there are few callers that error out with VIR_ERROR(), but
> most of them just return -1 with no apparent reason.  I'm not sure
> about few class initializations (virOnceInit) and driver
> initializations.  Do we want to be loud on that front as well?

Yes, global initializers must always report proper errors - these
are captured & reported on every call even though the initializer
is only run once.  So yes, I think everything should be noisy in
this case - there's no legitimate reason with these fnuctions why
you would want to be quiet and/or ignore failure.

|: 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 :|

More information about the libvir-list mailing list