[PATCH 04/15] virCgroupKillRecursive: Refactor cleanup

[Pavel Hrdina]

On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 11:55:06AM +0200, Peter Krempa wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 11:50:01 +0200, Pavel Hrdina wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 11:34:55AM +0200, Peter Krempa wrote:
> > > Remove 'cleanup' label and simplify remembering of the returned value
> > > from the callback.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Peter Krempa <pkrempa at redhat.com>
> > > ---
> > >  src/util/vircgroup.c | 16 ++++------------
> > >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/src/util/vircgroup.c b/src/util/vircgroup.c
> > > index b74ec1a8fa..dafc6c98c0 100644
> > > --- a/src/util/vircgroup.c
> > > +++ b/src/util/vircgroup.c
> > > @@ -2532,8 +2532,7 @@ virCgroupKillRecursiveInternal(virCgroupPtr group,
> > >  int
> > >  virCgroupKillRecursive(virCgroupPtr group, int signum)
> > >  {
> > > -    int ret = 0;
> > > -    int rc;
> > > +    int ret = -1;
> > >      size_t i;
> > >      bool backendAvailable = false;
> > >      virCgroupBackendPtr *backends = virCgroupBackendGetAll();
> > > @@ -2544,24 +2543,17 @@ virCgroupKillRecursive(virCgroupPtr group, int signum)
> > >      for (i = 0; i < VIR_CGROUP_BACKEND_TYPE_LAST; i++) {
> > >          if (backends && backends[i] && backends[i]->available()) {
> > >              backendAvailable = true;
> > > -            rc = backends[i]->killRecursive(group, signum, pids);
> > > -            if (rc < 0) {
> > > -                ret = -1;
> > > -                goto cleanup;
> > > -            }
> > > -            if (rc > 0)
> > > -                ret = rc;
> > > +            if ((ret = backends[i]->killRecursive(group, signum, pids)) < 0)
> > > +                return -1;
> > 
> > This doesn't look correct. In case that both cgroups v1 and v2 are used
> > the first call could return 1 meaning that it managed to kill some
> > process but the second call would probably return 0 because the process
> > would be already gone.
> 
> Does it in such case even make sense to call the second callback?
> 
> If yes, then I'll probably rather change it such, that a boolean
> variable will be set to true if any of the callbacks returns 1 to make
> it more obvious.

Good question, if the list of processes is the same in cgroups v1 and v2
it should be enough to call it only for one the cgroups, but I would
rather call it for both just to be on a safe side.

Using boolean sounds good.

Pavel
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/attachments/20201022/3b298e6c/attachment-0001.sig>