[libvirt] [PATCH v2 1/9] vbox: Add various vir*Flags API

[Eric Blake]

On 7/10/19 2:02 AM, Peter Krempa wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 09, 2019 at 12:46:30 -0500, Eric Blake wrote:
>> Even though we don't accept any flags, it is unfriendly to callers
>> that use the modern API to have to fall back to the flag-free API.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Eric Blake <eblake at redhat.com>
>> ---
>>  src/vbox/vbox_common.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++--
>>  1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/src/vbox/vbox_common.c b/src/vbox/vbox_common.c
>> index 54e31bec9d..44c98cadf6 100644
>> --- a/src/vbox/vbox_common.c
>> +++ b/src/vbox/vbox_common.c
>> @@ -553,7 +553,8 @@ static int vboxConnectClose(virConnectPtr conn)
>>  }
>>
>>  static int
>> -vboxDomainSave(virDomainPtr dom, const char *path ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED)
>> +vboxDomainSaveFlags(virDomainPtr dom, const char *path ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED,
>> +                    const char *dxml, unsigned int flags)
>>  {
>>      vboxDriverPtr data = dom->conn->privateData;
>>      IConsole *console = NULL;
>> @@ -564,6 +565,9 @@ vboxDomainSave(virDomainPtr dom, const char *path ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED)
>>      nsresult rc;
>>      int ret = -1;
>>
>> +    virCheckFlags(0, -1);
>> +    virCheckNonNullArgReturn(dxml, -1);
> 
> This reports: invalid argument: dxml in vboxDomainSave must not be NULL
> 
> I'm not certain that the internal function name makes sense to external
> users.

In which case I can hand-roll a more specific error instead of reusing
the common macro. But I do see pre-existing uses of
virCheckNonNullArgXXX in src/esx and src/vz prior to this patch, so it's
not the first time we've used the common macros.

> 
>> +
>>      if (!data->vboxObj)
>>          return ret;
>>
>> @@ -607,6 +611,12 @@ vboxDomainSave(virDomainPtr dom, const char *path ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED)
>>      return ret;
>>  }
>>
>> +static int
>> +vboxDomainSave(virDomainPtr dom, const char *path)
>> +{
>> +    return vboxDomainSaveFlags(dom, path, NULL, 0);
> 
> So, this passes NULL 'dxml' into vboxDomainSaveFlags which explicitly
> rejects it. What's the point?
> 
> Ah I see. Was the above supposed to be virCheckNullArgGoto?

D'oh. Yes, I got it backwards.  The function wants to succeed only if
the user omitted the optional dxml argument.

-- 
Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc.           +1-919-301-3226
Virtualization:  qemu.org | libvirt.org

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/attachments/20190710/e64bfb7e/attachment-0001.sig>