Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/2] error-report: provide error_report_exit()

[Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>]

On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 04:45:13PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com> writes:
> 
> > On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 08:19:08PM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote:
> >> On Tue, 08/16 20:17, Peter Xu wrote:
> >> > > Do we really need error_report_exit when we already have error_fatal?
> >> > 
> >> > error_fatal is the name of a global var, not the function.
> >> 
> >> I mean most error_report_exit(...) calls can be converted to
> >> error_setg(&error_fatal, ...).
> >
> > Right. But it's just another way to implement error_report_fatal(). We
> > may still need error_report_fatal() since it's cleaner and shorter
> > than error_setg(&error_fatal, ...).
> 
> Fam's point that
> 
>     error_report_fatal(...);
> 
> is just another way to write
> 
>     error_setg(&error_fatal, ...)
> 
> is valid.  Your point that the former is shorter and simpler is also
> valid.  In fact, error.h advises:
> 
>  * Please don't error_setg(&error_fatal, ...), use error_report() and
>  * exit(), because that's more obvious.
>  * Likewise, don't error_setg(&error_abort, ...), use assert().
> 
> Could you convert the existing error_setg(&error_fatal, ...) to
> error_report_fatal(...)?
> 
> Regarding error_report_abort(): in my opinion, printing pretty messages
> right before abort() is largely a waste of time.  But if people insist
> on doing it, then the error subsystem may have to support it.  Would you
> be willing to track down such usage, so we can make an informed
> decision?

Sure. :)

Yes I see usages for error_setg(&error_abort, ...), it makes sense to
provide error_report_abort() along with error_report_fatal(). Will
take your (and Fam's) advice.

Thanks for your comments!

-- peterx