On 01/27/2016 04:50 AM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 10:37:39AM +0800, Wen Congyang wrote: >> Under COLO, we are doing checkpoint on demand, if this >> callback returns 1, we will take another checkpoint. > > So 1 means OK. > >> 0 indicates unexpected error. > > Why not return an error? >> >> Signed-off-by: Yang Hongyang <hongyang.y...@easystack.cn> >> Signed-off-by: Wen Congyang <we...@cn.fujitsu.com> >> --- >> tools/libxc/include/xenguest.h | 18 ++++++++++++++++++ >> tools/libxl/libxl_save_msgs_gen.pl | 7 ++++--- >> 2 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/tools/libxc/include/xenguest.h b/tools/libxc/include/xenguest.h >> index bd133af..88d6e13 100644 >> --- a/tools/libxc/include/xenguest.h >> +++ b/tools/libxc/include/xenguest.h >> @@ -62,6 +62,15 @@ struct save_callbacks { >> * 1: take another checkpoint */ >> int (*checkpoint)(void* data); >> >> + /* >> + * Called after the checkpoint callback. >> + * >> + * returns: >> + * 0: terminate checkpointing gracefully > > checkpointing terminated gracefully > > Why not return -EXX instead ?
Other callbacks also use 0 to indicate an error. Thanks Wen Congyang > >> + * 1: take another checkpoint > > > . > _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel