From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:58479) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1buLlA-00088v-Tj for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 12 Oct 2016 11:48:03 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1buLl7-00045B-PY for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 12 Oct 2016 11:48:00 -0400 Received: from mailhub.sw.ru ([195.214.232.25]:22176 helo=relay.sw.ru) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1buLl7-00044u-DC for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 12 Oct 2016 11:47:57 -0400 Received: from [10.30.16.162] ([10.30.16.162]) by relay.sw.ru (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id u9CFlqoH014818 for ; Wed, 12 Oct 2016 18:47:54 +0300 (MSK) From: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy Message-ID: <57FE5B29.4040808@virtuozzo.com> Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 18:47:53 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Qemu-devel] error reporting in functions List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: qemu-devel HI all! My questions is: what are general recommendations in Qemu for return code, if we have Error **errp? What should I prefer: errp, duplicated by int return code, or void functions with errp? void + errp seems good, just to not duplicate things. But it has a disadvantage of necessity of "local_err" and "error_propagate" in caller function, if its behaviour depends on callee function success... -- Best regards, Vladimir