From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:40112) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TIlLT-0003lc-1t for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 01 Oct 2012 15:07:59 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TIlLS-0004Az-1C for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 01 Oct 2012 15:07:58 -0400 Received: from mail-wg0-f53.google.com ([74.125.82.53]:61980) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TIlLR-0004As-Qv for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 01 Oct 2012 15:07:57 -0400 Received: by wgbdr1 with SMTP id dr1so3295533wgb.10 for ; Mon, 01 Oct 2012 12:07:57 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Paolo Bonzini Message-ID: <5069EA08.8050500@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2012 21:07:52 +0200 From: Paolo Bonzini MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1349103144-6827-1-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com> <1349103144-6827-5-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com> <20121001141721.5ae57b52@doriath.home> In-Reply-To: <20121001141721.5ae57b52@doriath.home> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 4/9] qemu-sockets: add error propagation to Unix socket functions List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Luiz Capitulino Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org Il 01/10/2012 19:17, Luiz Capitulino ha scritto: >> > if (bind(sock, (struct sockaddr*) &un, sizeof(un)) < 0) { >> > - fprintf(stderr, "bind(unix:%s): %s\n", un.sun_path, strerror(errno)); >> > + error_set(errp, QERR_SOCKET_BIND_FAILED); > This drops error information, making the error message worse. I believe > you have a reason to not use error_setg()? I was waiting for the end of the discussion on errno to add error_setg_errno. > Also, I see that in some hunks you do something like: > > - fd = unix_listen_opts(opts); > + fd = unix_listen_opts(opts, NULL); > > This will break printing the error message to the user. It's fine by me if > you do this only temporarily (ie. this is fixed by the next or a later patch), > but want to double check that you're aware of it. I want to avoid super-large patch series, so I would prefer to fix it later in the 1.3 development. Paolo > Btw, I'm making these comments in this hunk but they apply to similar hunks > as well. >