[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [libvirt] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v5 6/6] block: Enable qemu_open/close to work with fd sets





On 07/26/2012 05:07 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
Am 26.07.2012 05:57, schrieb Corey Bryant:
On 07/25/2012 03:43 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
On 07/23/2012 07:08 AM, Corey Bryant wrote:
+int monitor_fdset_get_fd(Monitor *mon, int64_t fdset_id, int flags)
+{
+    mon_fdset_t *mon_fdset;
+    mon_fdset_fd_t *mon_fdset_fd;
+    int mon_fd_flags;
+
+    if (!mon) {
+        errno = ENOENT;
+        return -1;
+    }
+
+    QLIST_FOREACH(mon_fdset, &mon->fdsets, next) {
+        if (mon_fdset->id != fdset_id) {


+            continue;
+        }
+        QLIST_FOREACH(mon_fdset_fd, &mon_fdset->fds, next) {
+            if (mon_fdset_fd->removed) {
+                continue;
+            }
+
+            mon_fd_flags = fcntl(mon_fdset_fd->fd, F_GETFL);
+            if (mon_fd_flags == -1) {
+                return -1;

This says we fail on the first fcntl() failure, instead of trying other
fds in the set.  Granted, an fcntl() failure is probably the sign of a
bigger bug (such as closing an fd at the wrong point in time), so I
guess trying to go on doesn't make much sense once we already know we
are hosed.


I think I'll stick with it the way it is.  If fcntl() fails we might
have a tainted fd set so I think we should fail.

The alternative would be s/return 1/continue/, right? I think either way
is acceptable.


Yes, we'd continue the loop instead of returning -1. I prefer to return on the first failure, but if anyone feels strongly about continuing the loop, please let me know.

--
Regards,
Corey



[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]