On 14/10/2015 18:34, Samuel Thibault wrote: > Paolo Bonzini, le Wed 14 Oct 2015 17:51:51 +0200, a écrit : >> >> >> On 12/10/2015 17:41, Samuel Thibault wrote: >>> Eric Blake, le Mon 12 Oct 2015 09:30:12 -0600, a écrit : >>>> Also, I assume that brlapi_perror() adds additional information to >>>> the error message it prints, such as conversion of a brlapi-specific >>>> error message in the same manner in which perror() converts errno and in >>>> which error_setg_errno() would be used. >>> >>> Yes. Such additional information is really useful to debug brlapi >>> issues. >>> >>>> So I don't know if this >>>> conversion is the best. But I'm unfamiliar with brlapi_* in general, to >>>> know if there is anything better to use, >>> >>> brlapi_error_t * brlapi_error_location(void); >>> const char * brlapi_strerror(const brlapi_error_t *error); >>> >>> So brlapi_strerror(brlapi_error_location()) will return what you want, >>> i.e. the string that brlapi_error() would have printed. >> >> Is it okay to squash this? > > Yes, this looks right. Building with brlapi-dev installed would confirm > for sure that it builds, of course :)
That I checked. :) Paolo
