| |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
xen-devel
Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [Xen-changelog] The dom destroy path is doing a dom_
On Sep 14, 2005, at 18:07 , Dan Smith wrote:
# HG changeset patch
# User shand@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
# Node ID fb72c78604c673bb07915675620bce3b7630e323
# Parent 122779b57b40600dcaf2d147ca82ec23da8e2c96
<snip>
It then handles the exception in dom_get by returning None, which
callers already expect to mean failure.
This is not actually true, right? There are several places in the
code that blindly use the return value of dom_get(), assuming that it
is actually anything but None. The closest example is in the update()
function, several lines down:
self.info = info or dom_get(self.domid)
Ah, my bad. I misinterpreted this as a boolean expression at first
glance. Note, dom_get was already returning None when the domain
wasn't found, but another exception was preventing it from getting
that far. We're just moving the exceptions around, now.
self.memory = self.info['mem_kb'] / 1024
Clearly, we need to decide what behavior dom_get() is expected to
have. Do we expect it to return None if the domid is not found, or do
we expect the domain we're asking about to always be present
(i.e. throw an exception if not)?
If nobody has strong feelings either way, I'll work up a patch to fix
it.
My original fix was to allow dom_get to raise the exception, and I
just ignored it in delete(), since we are not expecting to find the
domain in the first place there. On second thought, this was
probably a better approach, since the other uses of dom_get would be
better off if they got exceptions instead of None.
robert
--
Dan Smith
IBM Linux Technology Center
Open Hypervisor Team
email: danms@xxxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
--
Robert Read
robert@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
|
|
| |
|
Home