From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1NeRhF-0005GG-Nv
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 08 Feb 2010 06:22:29 -0500
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=38623 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NeRhE-0005Fw-JX
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 08 Feb 2010 06:22:28 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim
	4.60) (envelope-from <lcapitulino@redhat.com>) id 1NeRh9-0002Rb-Eh
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 08 Feb 2010 06:22:28 -0500
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:20784)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <lcapitulino@redhat.com>) id 1NeRh8-0002QO-J8
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 08 Feb 2010 06:22:23 -0500
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 09:22:07 -0200
From: Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/4] qjson: Improve debugging
Message-ID: <20100208092207.3af5841c@doriath>
In-Reply-To: <m3d40jiozi.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org>
References: <1265314396-6583-1-git-send-email-lcapitulino@redhat.com>
	<1265314396-6583-2-git-send-email-lcapitulino@redhat.com>
	<4B6B4AD2.3060704@codemonkey.ws> <20100205101217.7ec97899@doriath>
	<4B6C3F3F.7010701@codemonkey.ws>
	<m3d40jiozi.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On Fri, 05 Feb 2010 18:14:41 +0100
Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com> wrote:

> Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws> writes:

[...]

> Yes.  But what's reasonably expected entirely depends on the contract
> between the function and its callers.
> 
> I think we need a function that cannot fail and shouldn't used with
> untrusted arguments (for what it's worth, that's how we use
> qobject_from_jsonf() now).  Having related functions with different
> contracts is fine with me.

 I completely agree.