Re: [PATCH 2/5] vhost-user-blk: Use Error more consistently

[Raphael Norwitz <raphael.norwitz@nutanix.com>]

Makes sense - I see why it makes reporting better at realize time.

Thanks for the clarification.

On Thu, Apr 29, 2021 at 11:26:29AM +0200, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Am 28.04.2021 um 20:08 hat Raphael Norwitz geschrieben:
> > Code looks ok - question about the commit message.
> > 
> > Acked-by: Raphael Norwitz <raphael.norwitz@nutanix.com>
> > 
> > On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 07:02:18PM +0200, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> > > Now that vhost_user_blk_connect() is not called from an event handler
> > > any more, but directly from vhost_user_blk_device_realize(), we don't
> > > have to resort to error_report() any more, but can use Error again.
> > 
> > vhost_user_blk_connect() is still called by vhost_user_blk_event() which
> > is registered as an event handler. I don't understand your point around
> > us having had to use error_report() before, but not anymore. Can you
> > clarify?
> 
> What I meant is that vhost_user_blk_event() can't really make use of an
> Error object other than passing it to error_report_err(), which has the
> same result as directly using error_report().
> 
> With the new code where vhost_user_blk_device_realize() calls the
> function directly, we can actually return the error to its caller so
> that it ends up in the QMP result or the command line error message.
> 
> The result is still not great because vhost_user_blk_connect() doesn't
> know the original error message. We'd have to add Error to
> vhost_dev_init() and the functions that it calls to get the real error
> messages, but at least it's a first step in the right direction.
> 
> We already figured that we need to change error reporting so we can know
> whether we should retry, so I guess this can be solved at the same time.
> 
> Kevin
>