From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:39765) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UGXsn-0004F6-MG for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 12:53:32 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UGXsl-00029r-0J for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 12:53:29 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:38432) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UGXsk-00029f-OS for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 12:53:26 -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 r2FGrP1p000855 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 12:53:25 -0400 Message-ID: <51435285.4010300@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 17:55:33 +0100 From: Laszlo Ersek MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <87a9qg5xjf.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org> <1363273057-25850-1-git-send-email-kwolf@redhat.com> <5141F224.3010108@redhat.com> <20130315083706.GD2418@dhcp-200-207.str.redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20130315083706.GD2418@dhcp-200-207.str.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 03/15/13 09:37, Kevin Wolf wrote: > Am 14.03.2013 um 16:52 hat Laszlo Ersek geschrieben: >> 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. > > So you would have used my local_err, but not ret_err? Something like that, yes. > I don't think that > would make it much better, Not contesting that ;) > ret_err is actually the nice part. Anyway I'm not feeling strongly about this and I don't want to waste your time with it. It was just a note in passing. (... Which I should probably refrain from, lest I waste people's time.) L.