From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:36075) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TF2Wk-0005st-Jq for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 21 Sep 2012 08:40:20 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TF2Wb-0007bG-2f for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 21 Sep 2012 08:40:14 -0400 Received: from mail-pb0-f45.google.com ([209.85.160.45]:62391) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TF2WZ-0007V5-Oe for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 21 Sep 2012 08:40:05 -0400 Received: by pbbrp12 with SMTP id rp12so7596540pbb.4 for ; Fri, 21 Sep 2012 05:40:01 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Paolo Bonzini Message-ID: <505C601B.5010209@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 14:39:55 +0200 From: Paolo Bonzini MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1348217255-22441-1-git-send-email-quintela@redhat.com> <1348217255-22441-25-git-send-email-quintela@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <1348217255-22441-25-git-send-email-quintela@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 24/41] buffered_file: callers of buffered_flush() already check for errors List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Juan Quintela Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org Il 21/09/2012 10:47, Juan Quintela ha scritto: > Signed-off-by: Juan Quintela > --- > buffered_file.c | 7 ------- > 1 file changed, 7 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/buffered_file.c b/buffered_file.c > index 43e68b6..747d672 100644 > --- a/buffered_file.c > +++ b/buffered_file.c > @@ -61,13 +61,6 @@ static void buffered_append(QEMUFileBuffered *s, > static void buffered_flush(QEMUFileBuffered *s) > { > size_t offset = 0; > - int error; > - > - error = qemu_file_get_error(s->file); > - if (error != 0) { > - DPRINTF("flush when error, bailing: %s\n", strerror(-error)); > - return; > - } > > DPRINTF("flushing %zu byte(s) of data\n", s->buffer_size); > Right, they do so _before_ checking buffered_flush which matches the code you are removing here. Perhaps an assertion would be better, but still: Reviewed-by: Paolo Bonzini