From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:38000)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <famz@redhat.com>) id 1bZf3D-0006AT-Pb
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 16 Aug 2016 10:09:11 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <famz@redhat.com>) id 1bZf37-0001yj-QU
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 16 Aug 2016 10:09:06 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:38228)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <famz@redhat.com>) id 1bZf37-0001yf-LJ
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 16 Aug 2016 10:09:01 -0400
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 22:01:56 +0800
From: Fam Zheng <famz@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <20160816140156.GA30495@al.usersys.redhat.com>
References: <1470901038-9409-1-git-send-email-peterx@redhat.com>
	<1470901038-9409-2-git-send-email-peterx@redhat.com>
	<87eg5p6kk0.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org>
	<20160816115351.GB27853@al.usersys.redhat.com>
	<20160816121708.GD9866@pxdev.xzpeter.org>
	<20160816121908.GA28518@al.usersys.redhat.com>
	<20160816140018.GG9866@pxdev.xzpeter.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20160816140018.GG9866@pxdev.xzpeter.org>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/2] error-report: provide
 error_report_exit()
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: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
Cc: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>, peter.maydell@linaro.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, pbonzini@redhat.com

On Tue, 08/16 22:00, Peter Xu wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 08:19:08PM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote:
> > On Tue, 08/16 20:17, Peter Xu wrote:
> > > > Do we really need error_report_exit when we already have error_fatal?
> > > 
> > > error_fatal is the name of a global var, not the function.
> > 
> > I mean most error_report_exit(...) calls can be converted to
> > error_setg(&error_fatal, ...).
> 
> Right. But it's just another way to implement error_report_fatal(). We
> may still need error_report_fatal() since it's cleaner and shorter
> than error_setg(&error_fatal, ...).

Then we should add both error_report_fatal and error_report_abort, or neither
of them.

Fam