Hi, On Mon, Jul 06, 2009 at 02:26:10PM +0800, Da Zheng wrote: > olafbuddenha...@gmx.net wrote:
> Since you think it's not proper to wrap the first thread at the place > where trace exec_startup_get_info() is called, I now wrap the first > thread of a task when the first RPC request comes. Actually, I wasn't quite sure whether it's proper -- I just don't understand the implications well enough. But if you found a safer approach, all the better :-) >>> In that case, I have to always use error() to check whether RPCs >>> return successfully? >> >> Well, strictly speaking you should. >> >> However, as rpctrace already uses it wrongly all over the place, I'm >> not sure what the best approach is. I tend to think it's still better >> to do it right in the new code... >> > I think we can do it in this way. I can keep all assert_perror() for > now and provide another patch to replace them with error(). I actually meant that it's probably better to use error() from the beginning in all code you *add*, and keep assert_perror() in preexisting code for now... An extra patch could "fix" the existing code. -antrik-
