From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BBE2FC87FD2 for ; Fri, 8 Aug 2025 09:33:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ukJTA-0006EJ-D5; Fri, 08 Aug 2025 05:33:00 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ukJT5-0006Cg-Sk for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 08 Aug 2025 05:32:55 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([170.10.133.124]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ukJT4-0001OO-7D for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 08 Aug 2025 05:32:55 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1754645573; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=Gyt+ZWuMTsSb0qeZGeE2m1DrFuVgcd14q5v9AIOOkP0=; b=LLsNK9+yDY/HtlxANvza5hpi5NhSd1sq3VSnyKwHDfKxEhtccruZVgaTNdkXXZiEv+Nftx yIl7KwsBxUvSuHF5D35tMpABXhXH89kQ3JOYjthS+ZcAeTywyfRdzAH4EApq4nmx3dc3Uw GgmLWgiKjvqUu/Afd37Zx4LSFs/0JPs= Received: from mx-prod-mc-01.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (ec2-54-186-198-63.us-west-2.compute.amazonaws.com [54.186.198.63]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-444-WZOIOCQgNRGbXkxogAaepQ-1; Fri, 08 Aug 2025 05:32:49 -0400 X-MC-Unique: WZOIOCQgNRGbXkxogAaepQ-1 X-Mimecast-MFC-AGG-ID: WZOIOCQgNRGbXkxogAaepQ_1754645568 Received: from mx-prod-int-08.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (mx-prod-int-08.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com [10.30.177.111]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mx-prod-mc-01.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5060B19560A5; Fri, 8 Aug 2025 09:32:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from blackfin.pond.sub.org (unknown [10.45.242.18]) by mx-prod-int-08.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 64A5E1800958; Fri, 8 Aug 2025 09:32:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: by blackfin.pond.sub.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 4E69A21E6A27; Fri, 08 Aug 2025 11:32:44 +0200 (CEST) From: Markus Armbruster To: =?utf-8?Q?Marc-Andr=C3=A9?= Lureau Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, odaki@rsg.ci.i.u-tokyo.ac.jp, =?utf-8?Q?Philippe_Mathieu-Daud=C3=A9?= , =?utf-8?Q?Daniel_P=2E_Berrang=C3=A9?= Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/12] util/oslib-win32: Revert warning on WSAEventSelect() failure In-Reply-To: (=?utf-8?Q?=22Marc-Andr=C3=A9?= Lureau"'s message of "Fri, 8 Aug 2025 12:22:03 +0400") References: <20250808080823.2638861-1-armbru@redhat.com> <20250808080823.2638861-9-armbru@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2025 11:32:44 +0200 Message-ID: <877bzejgzn.fsf@pond.sub.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.4.1 on 10.30.177.111 Received-SPF: pass client-ip=170.10.133.124; envelope-from=armbru@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Marc-Andr=C3=A9 Lureau writes: > Hi > > On Fri, Aug 8, 2025 at 12:08=E2=80=AFPM Markus Armbruster wrote: > >> qemu_socket_select() and its wrapper qemu_socket_unselect() treat a >> NULL @errp as &error_warn. This is wildly inappropriate. A caller >> passing NULL specifies that errors are to be ignored. If warnings are >> wanted, the caller must pass &error_warn. >> >> I'm not familiar with the calling code, so I can't say whether it will >> work after WSAEventSelect() failure. If it doesn't, then this should >> be an error. If it does, then why bother the user with a warning that >> isn't actionable, and likely confusing? >> >> The warning goes back to commit f5fd677ae7cf (win32/socket: introduce >> qemu_socket_select() helper). Before that commit, the error was >> ignored, as indicated by passing a null @errp. Revert to that >> behavior. >> > > Yes, the potential errors before introducing the wrapper were simply > ignored. I think we should fix the users or maybe just report the warning > and drop errp from the wrapper function. wdyt? Phil's "[RFC PATCH 0/2] system/win32: Remove unused Error argument in qemu_socket_[un]select()" does the latter. I doubt warnings are the right tool here. I just posted Subject: Abuse of warnings for unhandled errors and programming errors Message-ID: <87h5yijh3b.fsf@pond.sub.org> [...]