From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:40505) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UGAPu-00083x-LV for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 11:50:16 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UGAPn-00056R-Jh for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 11:50:06 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:34005) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UGAPn-000543-9B for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 11:49:59 -0400 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r2EFnusp019967 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 11:49:57 -0400 Message-ID: <5141F224.3010108@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 16:52:04 +0100 From: Laszlo Ersek MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <87a9qg5xjf.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org> <1363273057-25850-1-git-send-email-kwolf@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <1363273057-25850-1-git-send-email-kwolf@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: Kevin Wolf Cc: pbonzini@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, armbru@redhat.com 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. Laszlo