From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:48946) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dQcwt-0000mF-6J for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 29 Jun 2017 13:09:48 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dQcwp-0003m9-Sz for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 29 Jun 2017 13:09:47 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:45120) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dQcwp-0003lq-Mf for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 29 Jun 2017 13:09:43 -0400 Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 14:09:39 -0300 From: Eduardo Habkost Message-ID: <20170629170939.GU12152@localhost.localdomain> References: <20170613165313.20954-1-ehabkost@redhat.com> <87o9t8qy7d.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> <6fac3c3d-9cf8-cb79-0141-908fe8160a5b@redhat.com> <20170629141805.GG32167@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170629141805.GG32167@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC 00/15] Error API: Flag errors in *errp even if errors are being ignored List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: "Daniel P. Berrange" Cc: Paolo Bonzini , Markus Armbruster , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Michael Roth On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 03:18:05PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 03:39:58PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > On 28/06/2017 11:05, Markus Armbruster wrote: > > > If foo() additionally returned an indication of success, you could write > > > > > > if (!foo(arg, errp)) { // assuming foo() returns a bool > > > handle the error... > > > } > > > > > > Nicely concise. > > > > > > For what it's worth, this is how GLib wants GError to be used. We > > > deviated from it, and it has turned out to be a self-inflicted wound. > > > > > > > I find Eduardo's proposal better. With GLib's way it's easy to confuse > > functions that return 0/-1, 0/-errno, TRUE/FALSE, FALSE/TRUE or > > NULL/non-NULL. > > NB, glib basically standardizes on just FALSE/TRUE and NULL/non-NULL, > avoiding anything returning -1, or errno values, so in their usage > there isn't really any confusion. > > QEMU of course has lots of pre-existing code, but we could at least > declare a preferred approach, and work towards it. > > Having the return value indicate error is slightly shorter, and it > avoids all the blackmagic with special Error values in Eduardo's > series. Most usefully, it lets you use __attribute__(return_check) > to get compile time checking of callers who forget to check for > failure. I agree it's better when the return value is obvious, but I still think the Error value magic in IGNORE_ERRORS/ERR_IS_SET is preferable to the existing 700+ error_propagate() calls in the tree. -- Eduardo