From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:44469)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <lcapitulino@redhat.com>) id 1SqqP4-00031B-12
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 16 Jul 2012 14:52:19 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <lcapitulino@redhat.com>) id 1SqqP3-0007gb-2k
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 16 Jul 2012 14:52:17 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:3171)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <lcapitulino@redhat.com>) id 1SqqP2-0007gR-PU
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 16 Jul 2012 14:52:16 -0400
Received: from int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com
	(int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.25])
	by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q6GIq83P005540
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK)
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Mon, 16 Jul 2012 14:52:16 -0400
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 14:12:00 -0300
From: Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <20120716141200.5bbed537@doriath.home>
In-Reply-To: <500072D3.2060901@redhat.com>
References: <1339575768-2557-1-git-send-email-lersek@redhat.com>
	<1339575768-2557-2-git-send-email-lersek@redhat.com>
	<20120713133852.3a446672@doriath.home>
	<50005B3D.2070009@redhat.com> <500072D3.2060901@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 01/17] qapi: fix error propagation
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 21:11:15 +0200
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> wrote:

> Il 13/07/2012 19:30, Laszlo Ersek ha scritto:
> >>> >> -    if (errp == NULL) {
> >>> >> +    if (errp == NULL || *errp != NULL) {
> >> > 
> >> > I think we should use assert() here.
> >> > 
> >> > If the error is already set, that most probably indicates a bug in the caller, as
> >> > it's the caller's responsibility to decide which error to return.
> > I believe we had a good argument against this, but I can't precisely
> > recall (or find) it now. Paolo, do you remember? Can you please both
> > search your respective mailboxen for Message-ID
> > <4FB21B71.7030804@redhat.com>? That's where we started to discuss this.
> > 
> > I believe I saw some paths in the code that tripped on this leak, and
> > generally keeping the first error seemed like a good idea.
> > opts_end_struct() originally checked for any pre-existent error
> > explicitly, but then the check was moved to the common code.
> 
> The reason to do this for error_propagate was to allow this idiom:
> 
>           /* Always call end_struct if start_struct succeeded.  */
>           error_propagate(errp, err);
>           err = NULL;
>           visit_end_struct(v, &err);
>           error_propagate(errp, err);

I agree with this change for error_propagate() because it encapsulates our
rules for error propagation.

> I think doing it for error_set was just for symmetry and to avoid
> introducing excessive complexity.

We already check if the error is set in several places, and I don't think
it will add much complexity. I still think that an assert() is better.