From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:48417) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UGQ8a-000456-Ff for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 04:37:22 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UGQ8U-0005c8-F2 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 04:37:16 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:47367) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UGQ8U-0005bn-7Q for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 04:37:10 -0400 Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r2F8b9us030850 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 04:37:09 -0400 Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 09:37:06 +0100 From: Kevin Wolf Message-ID: <20130315083706.GD2418@dhcp-200-207.str.redhat.com> References: <87a9qg5xjf.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org> <1363273057-25850-1-git-send-email-kwolf@redhat.com> <5141F224.3010108@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5141F224.3010108@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH] qemu-socket: Use local error variable List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Laszlo Ersek Cc: pbonzini@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, armbru@redhat.com Am 14.03.2013 um 16:52 hat Laszlo Ersek geschrieben: > On 03/14/13 15:57, Kevin Wolf wrote: > > Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf > > --- > > After rebasing this I saw that Anthony already committed a fix that is > > very close to my v1. I don't intend to actually change that code, but as > > I've already done this, just for comparison what it would look like with > > error propagation. Is this what you meant? I find the result more > > confusing, to be honest. > > I think what I had in mind was: > - I was okay with the logic change you suggested in your v1, just > - turn *errp accesses into local_err accesses, > - when returning, propagate the latter to the former. > > The logic seemed OK, I just suggested to keep the massage internal to > the function, only try to propagate it outwards at return time. IOW, > never read *errp. So you would have used my local_err, but not ret_err? I don't think that would make it much better, ret_err is actually the nice part. Kevin